ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Immune checkpoint inhibitors for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis and 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of combined immunotherapy regimens for non-squamous non-small lung cancer after tyrosine kinase inhibitors resistance.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Optimizing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy for driver mutation-negative non-squamous NSCLC in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the established efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with chemotherapy, with or without anti-angiogenic agents, for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), a comprehensive comparative assessment of these regimens remains lacking. This study aimed to systematically compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of currently available ICI combination regimens for ES-SCLC. Methods: Phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published up to January 31, 2025, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Register, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), ≥grade 3 adverse events (AEs), and surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) score. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. A 10-year partitioned survival model (PSM) was used to estimate total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Eight phase III RCTs were included. NMA demonstrated that benmelstobart and anlotinib plus chemotherapy ranked first in improving OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.72-0.90), PFS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.55-0.67), and ORR (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.43-3.27) compared to chemotherapy. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy ranked second in OS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.91) and PFS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.66-0.80). Regarding safety, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy exhibited the lowest incidence of ≥grade 3 AEs among eight ICI-based regimens. The CEA indicated that the ICERs of ICI-based regimens as compared to chemotherapy alone ranged from $45,360.61/QALY to $382,106.89/QALY, exceeding the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($40,500/QALY). However, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy emerged as relatively cost-effective, achieving the second-highest QALYs (1.27) and the second-lowest costs ($52,273.46). Sensitivity analyses affirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusions: Benmelstobart and anlotinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated superior efficacy regarding OS, PFS, and ORR, while tislelizumab plus chemotherapy provided the most favorable safety profile among the evaluated ICI-based therapies. And none of the evaluated ICI-based regimens were cost-effective at the conventional WTP threshold. However, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was the most cost-effective as the WTP threshold increased.
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.