SynthesisBMC cancer2026
The cost-effectiveness of tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy for advanced melanoma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdoptive cell therapy with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes has been recognised as a safe and effective treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Whether such a novel intervention is cost-effective remains unclear. The aim of this research is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention for advanced melanoma by systematically reviewing the existing literature.
methodsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL, Academic Search Ultimate, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and citations) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies from 2000.
resultsA total of two studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation. According to both studies, this novel intervention is deemed as cost-effective for advanced melanoma compared to standard treatment ipilimumab in a Dutch and Danish setting. The finding supports reimbursement of this intervention and lead to its inclusion as treatment guidelines for patients with advanced melanoma.
conclusionsHowever, given the little research relating to its cost-effectiveness, further clinical trial investigations could be the next step of research in the UK and other European countries would be invaluable for these healthcare systems and their patients.
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.