ReviewLung cancer management2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of tepotinib vs capmatinib as subsequent therapy in MET exon 14-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.
Review in Lung cancer management, 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
backgroundThis study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Tepotinib versus Capmatinib in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations in China.
methodsAn economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of Tepotinib versus Capmatinib. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from two clinical trials were digitally extracted. The Exponential model with matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was employed at the end of the trials to extrapolate the long-term survivals.
resultsThe estimated cost and utility of Tepotinib treatment were higher than those of Capmatinib treatment, respectively (95,392.54 USD vs. 51,003.63 USD; 2.11 QALYs vs 1.38 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Capmatinib treatment vs. Tepotinib treatment was calculated at 60,977.28 USD/QALY.
conclusionsTepotinib was not cost-effective compared to Capmatinib as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations in China.
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.