ArticleBMC health services research2026
An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib versus placebo in resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: the perspective of the United States.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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.
- Precision in Pharmacoeconomics: A Comparative Cost-Utility Analysis of Osimertinib in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Using Traditional and Pharmacometric Models.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of almonertinib as adjuvant therapy in stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ADAURA trial reported a significant overall survival benefit of the use of adjuvant treatment with osimertinib following complete resection of stage IB‒IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal gerowth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. Herein, we aimed to strike an appropriate balance between osimertinib efficacy and cost in this patient population from the United States (US) healthcare system perspective. METHDS: We used an exhaustive Markov model over a 30-year time horizon to analyze primary health outcomes such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and life-years (LYs) with osimertinib adjuvant treatment in contrast to placebo in a group of patients with completely resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the model’s stability, together with subgroup analyses on the cohort.
resultsIn comparison with placebo, osimertinib was associated with an enhancement effectiveness (cost) of 6.32 ($1,250,406) QALYs, which led to an ICER of $197,994 per QALY for the overall patient population. ICERs were consistently higher than $150,000/QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, cost of osimertinib and utility of disease progression mildly influenced ICER. The osimertinib regimen was not cost-effective in all subgroup analyses.
conclusionsIn contrast to placebo, prolonged adjuvant osimertinib was not cost-effective in resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients in the US. However, it can provide more favorable health benefits.
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.