ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness evaluation of benmelstobart, anlotinib and chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Targeting RAB27A-mediated small extracellular vesicle secretion via CRISPR-Cas9 negatively affects proliferation and metastasis in both in vitro and in vivo SCLC models.Cancer gene therapy · 2026Article
- Benmelstobart Plus Anlotinib Is Unlikely to Be Cost-Effective for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Integrated Disease Burden and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
Introduction: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade is a growing treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of benmelstobart and anlotinib plus etoposide/carboplatin (EC) compared versus anlotinib plus EC and EC alone for patients with ES-SCLC in China. Methods: Using a Markov model over 5-year boundary and data from the ETER701 trials, we analyzed quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), total cost, incremental net health benefit (INHB) and incremental monetary benefit (INMB). To address uncertainties, we conducted one-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Scenario analyses were used to evaluate the resilience of our model's findings. Results: The administration of triple therapy for ES-SCLC demonstrated a significant improvement in QALY, with respective gains of 0.26, 0.39, compared with the other two schemes. However, enhanced therapeutic benefit was accompanied by increased costs. And triple therapy showed less cost-effectiveness with ICER of $189797.99 and $149249.24 per QALY respectively when compared with other schemes. Moreover, the analysis revealed an INHB of -1.04, -1.12 QALYs, and the INMB of -39755.48 $, -42819.93 $ respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that benmelstobart's cost was the main driver of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve displayed that the likelihood of triple therapy being cost-effective increased from 34.20% to 97.60% when the threshold value for cost per QALY gained varied from $180000 to $240000. The scenario analysis supported these findings. Discussion: Triple therapy was a less cost-effective option for patients with ES-SCLC compared with anlotinib plus EC and EC alone in China.
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.