ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Cost effectiveness analysis of PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia in Chinese patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma using real world data.
Article in Discover oncology, 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
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) versus recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) among patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with R-CHOP.
methodsWe developed two linked state-transition (Markov) models to estimate clinical and economic outcomes: a chemotherapy-phase model (18 weeks) and a post-chemotherapy model with a 20-year time horizon. Costs and selected transition probabilities were informed by real-world data from the Jiangsu Provincial Public Health Information Platform (a regional multicenter database); remaining inputs were obtained from the published literature. Parameter uncertainty was explored using deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).
resultsIn the base-case analysis, rhG-CSF was associated with lower total costs ($17,299.41 vs. $17,947.88) and slightly higher effectiveness (7.75 vs. 7.74 QALYs) compared with PEG-rhG-CSF. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of one times China’s per capita GDP in 2024 ($13,581.42 per QALY), PEG-rhG-CSF yielded a negative incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB: −$739.55), indicating that rhG-CSF was the economically preferred strategy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the base-case findings were generally robust across plausible variations in model parameters. The probability that rhG-CSF was cost-effective relative to PEG-rhG-CSF remained above 60% across a range of WTP thresholds.
conclusionsBased on real-world data and economic modeling, rhG-CSF showed a slightly higher probability of being cost-effective than PEG-rhG-CSF for primary prophylaxis of CIN among patients with NHL treated with R-CHOP.
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.