ArticlePloS one2025
Cost-effectiveness assessment of liquid biopsy for early detection of lung cancer in Brazil.
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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
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
introductionLung cancer has a low survival rate due to late diagnosis, with most cases detected at advanced stages. Liquid biopsy, a non-invasive alternative to tissue biopsy, has emerged as a potential screening tool for early lung cancer detection. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of liquid biopsy screening using an autoantibody test (EarlyCDT-Lung®) in high-risk populations from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).
methodsA decision-analytic model was developed, combining a decision tree and a Markov model to compare two strategies: standard clinical diagnosis without screening and liquid biopsy screening followed by confirmatory diagnostics. Model inputs included test accuracy, treatment costs, and survival data derived from systematic reviews, national registries, and published economic evaluations. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses assessed model robustness.
resultsLiquid biopsy screening analysis of a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 individuals at high-risk of lung cancer resulted in an incremental cost of $ 570,120 and an incremental effectiveness of 7.56 QALYs, with an ICER of $ 75,435.63 per QALY gained. This result has far exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold in Brazil ($ 7,017.54-21,052.62/QALY). Therefore, in case of assuming no significant cost reductions or accuracy improvements, the strategy would only become cost-effective in contexts where lung cancer prevalence exceeds 4.0%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed a low likelihood of cost-effectiveness, even with varying test sensitivity, lung cancer prevalence, and cost assumptions. DISCUSSION: The adoption of an autoantibody test as a liquid biopsy for early lung cancer screening in high-risk populations in Brazil led to increased costs and was not considered cost-effective under the thresholds commonly applied in the Brazilian context.
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.