ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of datopotamab deruxtecan versus docetaxel for previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
backgroundThe advent of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) has significantly reshaped therapeutic strategies for lung cancer. However, given their exceptionally high treatment costs, evaluating whether their clinical benefits justify these expenses is crucial, highlighting the need for robust economic assessments. This study was designed to clarify the relative cost-effectiveness of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) for individuals who had undergone treatment for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the American payers’ perspective.
methodsUtilizing data from the phase III TROPION-Lung01 randomized trial, a Markov model with a three-state structure and horizon of 20 years was implemented to simulate economic and clinical outcomes of Dato-DXd versus docetaxel. Outcomes were assessed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and incremental net health benefits (INHBs). All results were evaluated against a $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. To assess model robustness, probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsIn the overall and nonsquamous populations, Dato-DXd incurred additional costs of $225,314 and $241,136, respectively, with corresponding QALY gains of 0.09 and 0.08. This yielded ICERs of $2,483,946/QALY and $3,025,602/QALY, far exceeding the WTP threshold. In contrast, among patients with squamous histology, Dato-DXd resulted in both higher costs ($118,390) and reduced effectiveness (−0.17 QALYs), rendering it a dominant strategy. Sensitivity analysis identified body weight and drug acquisition cost as key variables influencing cost-effectiveness outcomes.
conclusionsDato-DXd showed poor cost-effectiveness in individuals who had undergone treatment for advanced or metastatic NSCLC, particularly those with squamous cell carcinoma in the USA.
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.