Loading
Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer / Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes / Head and Neck Cancer Studies · Journal article
Frontiers in Pharmacology · August 10, 2026
Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.
This is a health economic modelling study comparing biomarker-guided treatment with no testing in advanced gastric cancer from a Chinese payer perspective. The model found testing-guided care increased costs by $64,242.13 per 1,000 patients and QALYs by 0.63, yielding an ICER of $101,278.5/QALY that failed to meet the willingness-to-pay threshold; probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at $40,629/QALY.
Cost-effectiveness analysis using hybrid decision tree and three-state Markov model. Advanced or metastatic gastric cancer patients eligible for first-line therapy in China; modelled cohort.. Intervention: Multi-biomarker testing followed by biomarker-guided targeted therapy. Compared with: No testing (no biomarker testing; presumed standard chemotherapy). China (healthcare payer perspective).
Testing-guided care increased costs by $64,242.13 and QALYs by 0.63 over 10 years in a 1,000-patient cohort Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $101,278.5/QALY failed to meet willingness-to-pay threshold Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at $40,629/QALY
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The findings suggest that biomarker-guided treatment selection, while improving clinical outcomes (0.63 additional QALYs), does not meet cost-effectiveness thresholds in China at current drug prices. Clinicians and payers should consider value-based pricing strategies to improve affordability, but clinical decision-making should not change based on this modelling alone without empirical validation of the underlying assumptions.
A single-centre modelling study using a hybrid decision tree and Markov model with assumed parameters, not a clinical trial; provides economic perspective but lacks empirical validation of clinical inputs and generalizability.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
The findings suggest that biomarker-guided treatment selection, while improving clinical outcomes (0.63 additional QALYs), does not meet cost-effectiveness thresholds in China at current drug prices. Clinicians and payers should consider value-based pricing strategies to improve affordability, but clinical decision-making should not change based on this modelling alone without empirical validation of the underlying assumptions.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
Background Multi-biomarker testing increasingly guides first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer in China, but its economic value is uncertain. Methods We conducted a Chinese healthcare payer–perspective cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a testing-guided pathway with No-testing, using a hybrid decision tree plus three-state Markov model for a 1,000-patient cohort over 10 years. Results Testing-guided care increased costs by $64,242.13 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.63, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $101,278.5/QALY and failing to meet the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed 0% probability of cost-effectiveness at $40,629/QALY; key one-way drivers included progression-free (PF) utility and zolbetuximab cost. Conclusions Biomarker-guided treatment improved outcomes but was not cost-effective in China at current prices, mainly due to high drug costs in large biomarker-defined groups. Value-based pricing may improve affordability and cost-effectiveness.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.