ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025
Comparative Cost Analysis for Direct Medical Costs of Protocol Administration of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment Regimens in Curative Intent: A Micro-Costing Study in Jordan.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment costs significantly impact healthcare systems. This study analyzes direct costs and cost drivers of perioperative and adjuvant systemic treatments for stage I-II NSCLC from Jordanian healthcare providers' perspective using micro-costing methodology. Methods: We employed micro-costing to analyze direct medical expenses including drug acquisition, preparation, administration, pre/post-medications, diagnostics, labor, and wastage costs for perioperative regimens used in stage I-II NSCLC. International guidelines defined therapeutic regimens, while drug prices were extracted from Jordan Food and Drug Administration's database. Published data and surveys quantified micro-costs. Results: Among 26 assessed regimens (2 targeted therapy, 10 chemotherapy, 10 chemo-immunotherapy, 4 immunotherapy), targeted/immunotherapy agents significantly increased costs. Chemotherapy regimen cost differences ranged from $633.68 (squamous) to $1,763.91 (non-squamous) per cycle. Antineoplastic agents were primary cost drivers, highest for Durvalumab (98.72% of cycle cost). Laboratory costs comprised up to 50.73% in chemotherapy and 7.24% in immunotherapy regimens. Wastage contributed up to 10.36% of total cycle costs. Average administration cost was $35 per cycle. Maximum cycle costs were: targeted therapy (Osimertinib) $7,206.44, immunotherapy (Durvalumab) $9,057.71, immune-chemotherapy (Durvalumab-Carboplatin-Pemetrexed) $11,358.43, and chemotherapy (Carboplatin-Pemetrexed) $2,300.72. Conclusion: Our results highlight the substantial economic impact and cost variability among treatment regimens. This variability presents opportunities for cost reduction through careful selection of therapeutically equivalent regimens based on pricing and toxicity profiles. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive and precise cost analysis to inform healthcare policies and clinical practices. Future research should focus on cost-effectiveness analyses of these expensive agents to ensure value for money, support evidence-based decision-making, and strengthen price negotiations with suppliers.
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.