IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0320189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zhiwei Zheng
  • Huide Zhu
  • Ling Fang

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with platinum and etoposide compared to the standard treatment of etoposide and platinum as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer(ES-SCLC) from the Chinese medical system perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed utilizing data from the RATIONALE-312 trial to accurately simulate the clinical and economic outcomes of both treatment arms. This model incorporates three distinct health states, namely progression-free survival, disease progression, and death. These states are exclusive of each other, and patients can transition between them as their disease progresses.The model accounted for various cost components such as drug therapy, management of adverse events, disease progression, and overall survival. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were chosen as the metrics. The analysis employed a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and reliability of the model. Results: The tislelizumab group had a total cost of $52,749.69, whereas the chemotherapy group’s total expenses amounted to $8,811.62. Additionally, the tislelizumab group experienced a gain of 2.21 QALY compared to the chemotherapy group, albeit incurring an additional cost of $43,938.07. Consequently, this led to an ICER of $19,881.48, which falls below the Chinese WTP threshold of $39,855.79. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings across a range of scenarios. Conclusion: This cost-effectiveness analysis based on the RATIONALE-312 trial demonstrates that tislelizumab plus platinum and etoposide is a cost-effective treatment option for ES-SCLC compared to the standard chemotherapy from the Chinese medical system perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhiwei Zheng & Huide Zhu & Ling Fang, 2025. "Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(3), pages 1-14, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320189
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320189
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320189&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0320189?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.