ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy versus chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer in China.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multi-biomarker testing increasingly guides first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer in China, but its economic value is uncertain. Methods: We conducted a Chinese healthcare payer-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a testing-guided pathway with No-testing, using a hybrid decision tree plus three-state Markov model for a 1,000-patient cohort over 10 years. Results: Testing-guided care increased costs by $64,242.13 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.63, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $101,278.5/QALY and failing to meet the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at $40,629/QALY; key one-way drivers included progression-free (PF) utility and zolbetuximab cost. Conclusions: Biomarker-guided treatment improved outcomes but was not cost-effective in China at current prices, mainly due to high drug costs in large biomarker-defined groups. Value-based pricing may improve affordability and cost-effectiveness.
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.