ArticlePloS one2025
Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with platinum and etoposide compared to the standard treatment of etoposide and platinum as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer(ES-SCLC) from the Chinese medical system perspective.
methodsA partitioned survival model was developed utilizing data from the RATIONALE-312 trial to accurately simulate the clinical and economic outcomes of both treatment arms. This model incorporates three distinct health states, namely progression-free survival, disease progression, and death. These states are exclusive of each other, and patients can transition between them as their disease progresses.The model accounted for various cost components such as drug therapy, management of adverse events, disease progression, and overall survival. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were chosen as the metrics. The analysis employed a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and reliability of the model.
resultsThe tislelizumab group had a total cost of $52,749.69, whereas the chemotherapy group's total expenses amounted to $8,811.62. Additionally, the tislelizumab group experienced a gain of 2.21 QALY compared to the chemotherapy group, albeit incurring an additional cost of $43,938.07. Consequently, this led to an ICER of $19,881.48, which falls below the Chinese WTP threshold of $39,855.79. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings across a range of scenarios.
conclusionThis cost-effectiveness analysis based on the RATIONALE-312 trial demonstrates that tislelizumab plus platinum and etoposide is a cost-effective treatment option for ES-SCLC compared to the standard chemotherapy from the Chinese medical system perspective.
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.