ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
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.
- Advanced cystic lung cancer complicated with pulmonary lymphangitic carcinomatosis: a case report.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Molecularly engineered BODIPY photosensitizers for combined cancer phototherapy and immunotherapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of first-line tislelizumab for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer using a comparative validation of traditional survival and machine learning models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer(ES-SCLC) from the Chinese medical perspective. Methods: Our study utilized a partitioned survival model to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes for patients with ES-SCLC. The model incorporated direct healthcare costs and clinical outcomes.The primary outcome measures used in our analysis were quality adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). These measures were employed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness advantage of the treatment strategy by comparing it to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. To account for uncertainties in the model results, One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model results. Results: The base-case analysis showed that the total cost for toripalimab plus chemotherapy was $50,918.81, while the cost for chemotherapy was $20,280.31.The combination toripalimab therapy led to a higher QALY value of 1.59 compared to 0.55 for chemotherapy. This translated into an ICER of $29,460.09 per QALY gained, which was below the WTP threshold of $40,343.68 per QALY. The results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the findings were not significantly affected by changes in any of the input parameters. Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that toripalimab plus chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective first-line therapy for ES-SCLC compared to chemotherapy alone, based on the WTP threshold of $40343.68 per QALY.
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.