ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Integrating Structured Expert Elicitation with External Evidence to Inform Earlier Reimbursement Decisions: A Norwegian Case Study of Selpercatinib for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Norwegian public-private partnership, CONNECT, identified the reimbursement submission case of selpercatinib-a first-line targeted therapy for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-as a unique opportunity to assess the role of structured expert elicitation (SEE) in conjunction with phase II evidence.
objectiveThis study aims to compare the potential of using SEE and other sources of external evidence with phase III clinical trial results to explore the possibility of facilitating earlier (conditional) reimbursement decisions.
methodsWe conducted a series of cost-effectiveness analyses, grouping different sources of evidence (i.e., published clinical evidence and SEE) to estimate the long-term health and economic consequences of selpercatinib versus pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC in Norway. We developed a probabilistic partitioned survival model to estimate and compare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with evidence potentially available early in the product lifecycle, including SEE, with those using phase III evidence.
resultsICERs consistently ranged between $8257 and $19,819 per QALY gained when we used SEE, either alone or in combination with additional external evidence, or when we used the phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence.
conclusionsThe consistent cost-effectiveness results between pre-submission and post-submission phases support the potential of SEE to complement health technology assessment (HTA) and potentially inform earlier (conditional) reimbursement decisions for this single case study. However, future research should focus on refining SEE protocols for continued methodological development and validation to improve generalizability and applicability.
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.