ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Toripalimab regimen for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China and America.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of socazolimab plus chemotherapy vs. standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a U.S. and China perspective.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Tarlatamab in the Second-Line Treatment of Refractory Small Cell Lung Cancer From a US Perspective.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Comparative cost-effectiveness of sintilimab, toripalimab, and camrelizumab in first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Toripalimab combined with chemotherapy is a clinically valuable and important regimen in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, there are no studies on the cost-effectiveness of this regimen, so this study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Toripalimab regimen for the treatment of ES-SCLC from the perspectives of the Chinese health system and the U.S. health system, respectively. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the clinical progression and cost consumption of ES-SCLC using the results of the EXTENTORCH study as a source of survival data and incorporating direct medical costs. Model output metrics included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental QALYs, total costs, and incremental costs. The cost-effectiveness of the Toripalimab scheme was judged by comparing the ICER with the willingness to pay (WTP). The robustness of the model was verified by sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. Results: The results of the basic analysis showed that from the perspective of the Chinese health system, the Toripalimab group gained 0.18 QALYs more at a cost of $5,204, with an ICER of $29,139/QALY (<WTP). From the standpoint of the U.S. health system, the Toripalimab group spent $156,923 more and also gained 0.17 QALYs more, but the ICER ($915,965/QALY) was much higher than the WTP. Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed the model to be generally stable. Conclusions: Compared with chemotherapy, the Toripalimab regimen for the treatment of ES-SCLC is cost-effective from the perspective of the Chinese health system, but not from the perspective of the US health system.
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.