ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Tarlatamab in the Second-Line Treatment of Refractory Small Cell Lung Cancer From a US Perspective.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Compared with chemotherapy, tarlatamab significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) whose disease progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tarlatamab versus chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the US health care system. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease progression on the basis of the DeLLphi-304 trial results. A 28-day cycle length and a 10-year time horizon were adopted for the model. Direct medical costs and health utility estimates were extracted from previously published studies and publicly available databases. The model outputs included the total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at $150 000/QALY and $200 000/QALY for the United States. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: At an incremental cost of $203 332.28, tarlatamab yielded an additional 0.29 QALYs compared with chemotherapy. This resulted in an ICER of $701 145.79/QALY, which substantially exceeded the WTP thresholds. The cost of tarlatamab emerged as a major influential parameter in the sensitivity analyses, demonstrating its substantial impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Sensitivity and scenario analyses confirmed the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: At WTP thresholds of $150 000/QALY and $200 000/QALY, tarlatamab was not considered a cost-effective option at the current price compared with chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent ESCLC from the US payer perspective.
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.