ArticleScientific reports2024
First-line chemotherapy with tislelizumab for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04005716 (A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Platinum Plus Etoposide With or Without Tislelizumab), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Platinum Plus Etoposide With or Without Tislelizumab (BGB-A317) in Patients With Untreated Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Phase 3 RATIONALE-312 trial (NCT04005716) showed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy led to a noteworthy enhancement resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival among patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to chemotherapy alone. The treatment also had an acceptable level of safety. Nevertheless, the debate over the efficacy of implementing several treatment plans in competition continues due to the significant expenses involved. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the potential efficacy and cost of tislelizumab treatment as a first-line treatment for the ES-SCLC patient population in China. The study assessed primary health outcomes by measuring life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). This was done using a Markov model considering three health states with a 15-year horizon. To assess its model resilience, we conducted one-way sensitivity analyses with probability. In addition, subgroup analyses of some pre-specified patients was performed. Compared to chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.34 ($8,028) QALYs, leading to an ICER of $23,553 per QALY for the overall patient population. The ICER was lower than the assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,367 per QALY. Approximately 60% of simulations suggested that tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective, while 40% suggested that chemotherapy alone was cost-effective. The subsequent sensitivity analyses revealed that the health utility value associated with the disease progression parameter had the greatest influence on ICER. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was a preferable treatment option for regimens for patients with ES-SCLC in China. This finding is important in guiding the Chinese healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.