ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The IMforte trial demonstrated that lurbinectedin combined with atezolizumab (LU-AT) as a first-line regimen offers clinical advantages over atezolizumab alone (AT) in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, given the high costs of lurbinectedin and atezolizumab, the cost-effectiveness of LU-AT relative to AT remains uncertain. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of LU-AT as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC within the context of China's and the United States' healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival analysis (PartSA) model was employed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LU-AT as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC. Clinical efficacy data were sourced from the IMforte trial. Drug costs were based on national tender prices, while other costs and utility values were derived from the literature. Outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. Results: The combination regimen of lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab yielded an additional 0.21 QALYs compared with atezolizumab monotherapy, leading to an ICER of $374,167.43 per QALY in China and $1,071,237.82 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing-to-pay threshold ($40,365.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00/QALY in the USA). The utility of progression-free survival (PFS), the cost of lurbinectedin, body surface area (BSA), and the cost of atezolizumab are the four most influential factors in both China and the United States. Across all sensitivity analyses, the outcomes generated by the models remained robust. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $40,365 and $150,000 per QALY, the probability of LU-AT being cost-effective relative to AT was 0% in China and USA. Conclusion: Within the framework of China's and the United States' healthcare system, LU-AT is unlikely to represent a cost-effective first-line treatment for ES-SCLC.
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.