Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 19;41(3):295–306. doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01232-9

Table 2.

Characteristics and quality assessment of included cost-utility analyses for cancer treatment

CUAs included [n = 467] CUAs that used disutilities of AEs [n = 254, 54%] CUAs that did not use disutilities of AEs [n = 213, 46%]
Year of publication
2019 107 (23) 51 (48) 56 (52)
2020 129 (28) 65 (50) 64 (50)
2021 190 (41) 116 (61) 74 (39)
2022 41 (9) 22 (54) 19 (46)
Countrya
United States 196 (42) 115 (59) 81 (41)
China 129 (28) 62 (48) 67 (52)
Canada 28 (6) 17 (61) 11 (39)
Japan 15 (3) 9 (60) 6 (40)
UK 16 (3) 9 (56) 7 (44)
Othersb 110 (24) 55 (50) 55 (50)
Study population
Non-small cell lung cancer 103 (22) 63 (61) 40 (39)
Hematological malignancies 86 (18) 50 (58) 36 (42)
Breast cancer 62 (13) 30 (48) 32 (52)
Melanoma 24 (5) 16 (67) 8 (33)
Prostate cancer 21 (5) 16 (76) 5 (24)
Hepatocellular carcinoma 26 (6) 15 (58) 11 (42)
Colorectal cancer 28 (6) 11 (39) 17 (61)
Othersc 117 (25) 53 (45) 64 (55)
Study perspectived
Health care payer 401 (86) 231 (58) 170 (42)
Society 52 (11) 19 (37) 33 (63)
Otherse 3 (1) 0 (0) 3 (100)
Not stated 16 (3) 9 (56) 7 (44)
Model structuref
Markov model 263 (56) 129 (49) 134 (51)
Partitioned survival model 152 (33) 101 (66) 51 (34)
Othersg 44 (9) 24 (55) 20 (45)
Not stated 13 (3) 3 (23) 10 (77)
Quality score
100 96 (21) 56 (58) 40 (42)
75–99 359 (77) 194 (54) 165 (46)
74–50 12 (3) 4 (33) 8 (67)

Data are expressed as n (%)

CUAs cost-utility analyses

aMultiple countries were studied in some CUAs

bFrance, The Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, Italy, etc.

cLymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, small cell lung cancer, etc.

dMultiple perspectives were studied in some CUAs

eHospital or patient perspective

fMultiple models were applied in some CUAs

gDecision tree and Markov model, decision tree model, discrete event simulation model, etc.