SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Economic evaluations of next-generation sequencing for targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
Aim: This study aimed to systematically review model-based economic evaluations of next-generation sequencing for guiding targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, and Wanfang Database from inception to March 20, 2026, to identify economic evaluations of next-generation sequencing for molecular testing in non-small cell lung cancer. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. A qualitative synthesis was conducted to summarize study characteristics, model structures, testing strategies, cost-effectiveness results, and sensitivity analyses. Results: Eighteen model-based economic evaluations were included. Seven modeling approaches were identified, among which hybrid models combining a decision tree with a partitioned survival model were most frequently used, followed by decision tree-Markov models. Most studies evaluated next-generation sequencing against single-gene testing or sequential molecular testing, although the tested genes, panel sizes, comparator strategies, and treatment pathways varied substantially across studies. Epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase were the most commonly included biomarkers. Overall, most studies suggested that next-generation sequencing was cost-effective compared with conventional testing strategies, but several studies from Asian settings reported unfavorable cost-effectiveness results. Key drivers of model results included treatment costs, time horizon, testing strategy, prevalence of actionable alterations, and turnaround time. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that NGS-guided strategies may improve health outcomes in NSCLC, but their economic value remains highly context-dependent. Cost-effectiveness is influenced not only by testing strategies, but also by the availability, accessibility, and cost of matched targeted therapies, as well as turnaround time and other real-world implementation factors. Future evaluations should therefore assess NGS within the broader molecular testing-treatment pathway and better reflect real-world clinical practice.
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.