ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of trilaciclib for preventing myelosuppression in small cell lung cancer patients treated with etoposide, carboplatin, and atezolizumab.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the economic value of administering trilaciclib to prevent myelosuppression in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients receiving etoposide, carboplatin, and atezolizumab (E/P/A) from both the Chinese and the United States (US) perspectives. A decision tree model was constructed to estimate and compare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net health benefits (INHBs), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and uncertainty of the economic analysis. The base case analysis indicated that from the perspective of US payers, trilaciclib was cost-saving at the WTP threshold of $241,230.00, with an incremental cost of $-12,626.08, an INMB of $16,788.02, and an INHB of 0.07 QALYs. Conversely, from the perspective of Chinese payers, the use of trilaciclib was not economical at the WTP threshold of $35,817.44, with an ICER of $691,541.63/QALY, an INMB of -$8,765.52, and an INHB of -0.24 QALYs. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of these results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, from the Chinese payers' perspective, trilaciclib treatment was not economical, with a probability of 100%. In contrast, from the US payers' perspective, it was economical, with a probability of 90.05%. Given the limited clinical data available for trilaciclib in the Chinese population, the cost-effectiveness of trilaciclib may improve with the inclusion of new data or changes in health insurance policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.