Update on the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: focus on the cost-effectiveness of new agents

Figures & data

Table 1 Economic analyses of gefitinib in NSCLC

Author	Line	Type	Main results	Reference
Chouaid et al	3rd	Modeling of a compassionate-use program. French payer’s perspective.	Total costs: € 39,979 ± € 20,279 (10% of total costs).	7
Thongprasert et al	2nd	Model-based comparison: erlotinib, pemetrexed, and docetaxel. Thai payer’s perspective.	Gefitinib is better than erlotinib and docetaxel.	8
Horgan et al	2nd	Cost-utility analysis of INTEREST trial, gefitinib versus docetaxel.	ICER CA$ 5161; gefitinib preferred.	9
Brown et al	1st	Modeling of first-line gefitinib versus chemotherapy.	ICER £ 35,700 for gefitinib versus doublet therapy.	10
de Lima Lopes et al	1st	Modeling of cost-effectiveness of EGF TKIs versus standard care. Asian payer’s perspective.	US$ 2400; dominant strategy.	11

Abbreviation: ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio.

Table 2 Results of the ERMETIC study¹²

ICER/QALY (euros)	Euros
No selection	43,895
Chemically guided	28,863
Biologically guided	27,209

Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life years.

BorgetICadranelJPignonJPCost-effectiveness of three strategies for second-line erlotinib initiation in non-small-cell lung cancer: the ERMETIC study part 3Eur Respir J20123917217921659409

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar