---
title: "Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights"
description: "Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights for Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer, each value quoted from the article: 11 cost-effectiveness analyses and 8 studies reporting utility weights. Analyses: Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy, China: Long et al. (2025); Sintilimab plus chemotherapy with or without IBI305 versus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy, China: Peng et al. (2024); Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in previously treated EGFR T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, United States and China: Shi et al. (2022); Osimertinib versus chemotherapy in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC after first-line EGFR TKI therapy, United States and China: Wu et al. (2018); 7 further articles. Utility weights: Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease and hematologic adverse events, EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC: Long et al. (2025); Utility weights for progressed disease and adverse events of sintilimab-based therapy, EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy: Peng et al. (2024); Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease, EGFR-mutated NSCLC after first-line EGFR TKI therapy: Wu et al. (2018); Utility weights for progression-free and progressive disease in the United States and China, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC: Wu et al. (2025); 4 further articles. Every value is a verbatim quote from the primary article it is shown with."
canonical: "https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/cost-effectiveness-analyses"
published: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
modified: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
---
# Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights
Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles.
## Overview
| Item | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. |
| Cost-effectiveness analyses | 11 |
| Studies reporting utility weights | 8 |
## 1 Cost-effectiveness analyses
### 1.1 Analyses of Ivonescimab
#### Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy, China: Long et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates ivonescimab plus chemotherapy against chemotherapy alone in EGFR-mutated nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness analysis by Long et al. summarized in section 4.1.
> “This investigation systematically analyzed the cost-effectiveness of treating advanced/metastatic nsq-NSCLC with EGFR mutations with a combination of ivonescimab and chemotherapy from the standpoint of the Chinese healthcare system.”
> “A decision-embedded Markov model with three specific health states was established for predicting the economic and health outcomes associated with ivonescimab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone over a 10-year time frame.”
> “Additionally, a 5% discount was applied annually to medical benefits and costs”
> “Relative to the use of chemotherapy alone, the combination of chemotherapy with ivonescimab resulted in an additional 0.13 QALY (0.17 LYs) with a marginal cost of $35,166 and an ICER of $277,594 per additional QALY, which far exceeded the pre-set WTP threshold of $36,997/QALY.”
> “In the PSA, all ICER scatter points in the cost-effectiveness scatter plot fell above the WTP threshold, indicating that at a WTP cutoff of $36,997 per QALY, the probability that ivonescimab-chemotherapy treatment is cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone was 0%”
Source: [Long et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12170261/)
### 1.2 Treatments for the same indication
#### Sintilimab plus chemotherapy with or without IBI305 versus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy, China: Peng et al. (2024)
Relevance: Evaluates sintilimab plus chemotherapy with or without the bevacizumab biosimilar IBI305 against chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on EGFR-TKI therapy in China, the post-TKI population of HARMONi and HARMONi-A, with a PD-1 antibody and a VEGF-targeted antibody added to chemotherapy.
Access: Free full text
> “This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab biosimilar IBI305, versus chemotherapy alone for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.”
> “10-year Markov model was developed using a 21-day cycle length.”
> “Both costs and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%”
> “The cost and survival improvements for sntilimab plus IBI305 and chemotherapy were $20,713.72 and 0.38887 QALYs, while for sintilimab plus chemotherapy, the improvements were $5,964.73 and 0.38911 QALYs, respectively.”
> “The ICER for sntilimab plus IBI305 and chemotherapy was $53,266.32/QALYs, surpassing the upper bound of the preset WTP threshold range ($38,223.34 per QALY).”
> “For sintilimab plus chemotherapy, the ICER was $15,329.11/QALY, slightly higher than the lower bounds of the preset WTP threshold range ($15,289.34 per QALY)”
> “Importantly, throughout this WTP threshold range of $0 to $200,000 per QALY, the probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effectiveness consistently remains higher than the probability of sintilimab plus IBI305 and chemotherapy being cost-effectiveness as the WTP threshold increases.”
Source: [Peng et al. (2024)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11488704/)
### 1.3 The same disease in other populations or settings
#### Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in previously treated EGFR T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, United States and China: Shi et al. (2022)
Relevance: Evaluates osimertinib against platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy in previously treated EGFR T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China and the United States; platinum-pemetrexed is the chemotherapy backbone of both arms of HARMONi.
> “Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.”
> “A three health states Markov model was established by TreeAge Pro 2021 (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA, USA)”
> “The time horizon is the lifetime.”
> “This study applied half-cycle correction and an annual discount rate of 3% and 5% in costs as well as health utilities in the United States and Chinese contexts, respectively”
> “In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively.”
> “The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively.”
> “The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY.”
> “In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively.”
> “At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.”
Source: [Shi et al. (2022)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9619214/)
#### Osimertinib versus chemotherapy in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC after first-line EGFR TKI therapy, United States and China: Wu et al. (2018)
Relevance: Evaluates osimertinib against chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on first-line EGFR-TKI therapy in the United States and China, a post-TKI setting that precedes the progression on a third-generation EGFR-TKI required by HARMONi.
Access: Free full text
> “A mathematical model was established by combining a decision tree and the Markov approach to project the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard chemotherapy for the treatment of patients who harbor an EGFR T790M mutation and have disease progression after first-line EGFR TKI therapy with or without metastases to the central nervous system.”
> “The cost data were estimated from the perspectives of the payer in the United States and the health care system in the People's Republic of China.”
> “Cost and QALYs were discounted by 3% and 5% annually in the U.S. and Chinese contexts, respectively.”
> “All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented in 2017 U.S. dollars.”
> “Compared with chemotherapy, molecular testing in plasma and tissue followed by osimertinib treatment yielded an additional 0.359 and 0.313 QALYs in the entire U.S. population and the population of those with central nervous system metastases and an EGFR T790M mutation.”
> “For these populations, the incremental costs were $83,515 and $74,924 per patient, respectively, and the ICERs were $232,895 and $239,274 per QALY, respectively.”
> “For the entire Chinese population and the Chinese population with central nervous system metastases, the ICERs were $48,081 and $53,244 per QALY, respectively.”
> “For those with a known T790M mutation, the ICERs of osimertinib over chemotherapy also exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold.”
Source: [Wu et al. (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2017.10.012)
#### First-line or second-line osimertinib versus first-generation EGFR TKI followed by chemotherapy in newly diagnosed EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, United States and China: Wu et al. (2019)
Relevance: Evaluates first-line and second-line osimertinib against standard first-generation EGFR-TKI therapy in newly diagnosed EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from a public payer perspective in the United States and China, the treatment sequence that leads to the post-TKI setting of HARMONi.
> “The objective of this study was to assess cost and effectiveness of osimertinib in treating newly diagnosed advanced non‐small cell lung cancer with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation from a public payer's perspective in the U.S. and China.”
> “Markov models were developed to compare three treatment strategies: first‐line use of osimertinib, first‐line use of the standard first‐generation EGFR‐tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR‐TKI) followed by the second‐line use of osimertinib, and the standard first‐generation EGFR‐TKI therapy (standard care [SOC]).”
> “Therefore, we used a 10‐year time horizon in the base‐case analysis and varied the time horizon from 1 to 20 years in the sensitivity analyses.”
> “In the base‐case analysis, both costs and QALYs were discounted 3% and 5% annually in the U.S. [33] and China [34], respectively.”
> “For the whole population in the U.S., the mean costs and QALYs associated with the first‐line osimertinib, second‐line osimertinib, and SOC strategies were $511,415 and 2.316, $330,602 and 1.766, and $244,837 and 1.465, respectively.”
> “The corresponding numbers in China were $72,615 and 2.244, $51,658 and 1.757, and $41,159 and 1.487”
> “The resultant ICERs for first‐line osimertinib versus SOC were $312,903 in the U.S. and $41,512 in China.”
> “The ICERs for second‐line osimertinib versus SOC were $284,532 in the U.S. and $38,860 in China.”
> “The probability of the SOC strategy being cost‐effective is 1.0 if the willingness to pay threshold is below $150,000/QALY in the U.S. and below $30,000/QALY in China.”
Source: [Wu et al. (2019)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6519771/)
#### Amivantamab plus lazertinib versus osimertinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, United States and China: Wu et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates first-line amivantamab plus lazertinib against osimertinib in EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States and China; amivantamab with chemotherapy is a treatment alternative after EGFR-TKI progression listed in section 2 and studied in MARIPOSA-2.
Access: Not open access
> “This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of AL regimen compared with osimertinib in US and Chinese healthcare settings.”
> “A partitioned survival model, comprising progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression, and death states, was developed using a Markov model.”
> “Clinical data were obtained from the recent Phase III MARIPOSA trial.”
> “In the base case analysis, the average costs of AL and osimertinib regimen were $1,030,524.3 (China: $234,270.87) and $466,922.0 (China: $20,075.35), respectively, and the QALYs achieved were 4.08 (China: 3.66) and 2.60 (China: 2.66), respectively.”
> “The ICERs for AL compared with osimertinib in the US and China were $563,602.3 and $214,195.51, respectively.”
> “Based on the respective WTP thresholds in the US and China, the AL regimen did not represent a cost-effective option.”
Source: [Wu et al. (2025)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40220717/)
#### Amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed versus carboplatin-pemetrexed in first-line NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions, United States: Yue et al. (2024)
Relevance: Evaluates amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed against carboplatin-pemetrexed in EGFR exon 20 insertion non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States, with the same chemotherapy control regimen as HARMONi.
> “We constructed a Markov model based on the data derived from the PAPILLON trial.”
> “The simulation cycle duration was 3 weeks, which was consistent with the PAPILLON trial.”
> “In this study, a 3% annual discount rate was applied for future health utility and cost”
> “The baseline findings revealed that amivantamab–chemotherapy resulted in 1.904 QALYs (2.973 LYs), whereas chemotherapy alone generated 1.423 QALYs (2.161 LYs).”
> “The cost of amivantamab–chemotherapy was $430,980.857, while the cost of chemotherapy alone was $62,908.322.”
> “Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab combined with chemotherapy treatment gained an incremental effectiveness of 0.473 QALYs and an incremental cost of $361,950.952, which resulted in an ICER of $765,224/QALY.”
> “The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed amivantamab–chemotherapy was not cost-effective at all compared to the WTP threshold”
> “From the perspective of the American healthcare system, the amivantamab combination with chemotherapy was not a cost-effective first-line regimen compared with chemotherapy alone for advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertions.”
Source: [Yue et al. (2024)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10995216/)
#### Osimertinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy, China: Guan et al. (2019)
Relevance: Evaluates second-line osimertinib and platinum doublets, including pemetrexed plus platinum, in EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The results comparing the platinum-based chemotherapies with each other are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “From the perspective of China's health care system, a Markov model was used for estimating the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib and 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, including pemetrexed + platinum (PP), gemcitabine + platinum (GP), docetaxel + platinum (DP), and paclitaxel + platinum (TP).”
> “Two scenarios were considered, one in all confirmed patients with T790M-positive disease (scenario 1) and the other in all patients whose disease progressed after epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, which consisted of patients with T790M-positive or T790M-negative NSCLC (scenario 2).”
> “In the base-case analysis, compared with the 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.671 to 0.846 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with incremental costs of 15,943 to 20,299 USD in scenario 1, and an additional 0.376 to 0.808 QALY with incremental costs of 9710 to 15,407 USD in scenario 2.”
> “In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that osimertinib would be cost-effective were 57.7% in scenario 1 and 58.4% in scenario 2 if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 30,000 USD/QALY, and probabilities would be more than 75 % in both scenarios if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 50,000 USD/QALY.”
Source: [Guan et al. (2019)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31607559/)
#### Osimertinib versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy, United Kingdom: Bertranou et al. (2018)
Relevance: Evaluates osimertinib against platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in EGFR T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after EGFR-TKI therapy in the United Kingdom.
Access: Free full text
> “This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.”
> “A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed.”
> “Costs were expressed in GBP (£) at 2015 UK prices, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum, in line with NICE guidelines”
> “Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC.”
> “Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained).”
> “Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.”
Source: [Bertranou et al. (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1377718)
### 1.4 Related diseases and analogous treatments
#### Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy in first-line metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, United States: Insinga et al. (2018)
Relevance: Evaluates pembrolizumab added to carboplatin or cisplatin and pemetrexed against chemotherapy alone in first-line metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States, a PD-1 antibody paired with the pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy used in HARMONi.
> “A model is developed utilizing partitioned survival analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of KEYNOTE-189 trial comparators pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (carboplatin/cisplatin + pemetrexed) vs chemotherapy alone.”
> “Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization, health utility, and safety data are derived from the trial and projected over 20 years.”
> “Based on an indirect treatment comparison, cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab monotherapy is evaluated for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50%.”
> “In the full non-squamous population, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy is projected to increase life expectancy by 2.04 years vs chemotherapy (3.96 vs 1.92), for an approximate doubling of life years.”
> “Resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are $104,823/QALY and $87,242/life year.”
> “Corresponding incremental costs/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are $103,402, $66,837, and $183,529 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 1-49%, and <1% groups, respectively.”
> “Versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 ≥ 50% patients, representing current standard of care, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy increases life expectancy by 65% (4.53 vs 2.74 years) at an ICER of $147,365/QALY.”
Source: [Insinga et al. (2018)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188231/)
#### Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and carboplatin-paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel or carboplatin-paclitaxel in first-line metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, United States: Wan et al. (2019)
Relevance: Evaluates first-line atezolizumab added to bevacizumab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel in metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States, a regimen that combines PD-L1 and VEGF blockade with platinum chemotherapy.
Access: Free full text
> “The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in the first-line setting for the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC from the US payer perspective.”
> “A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab, bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ABCP) with the combination of bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (BCP) and carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC.”
> “The time duration was lifetime. Half-cycle correction was applied in the model. A 3% discount rate per year was adopted for both costs and outcomes.”
> “ABCP provided an additional 0.413 QALYs (0.460 LYs) and 0.738 QALYs (0.956 LYs), respectively, compared with BCP and CP.”
> “The corresponding incremental costs were $234,998 and $381,116, respectively.”
> “The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ABCP was $568,967 per QALY compared with BCP and $516,114 per QALY compared with CP.”
> “ABCP Vs BCP ABCP Vs CP BCP Vs CP”
> “Per QALY 568,967 516,114 449,029”
> “From the perspective of the US payer, ABCP is estimated to not be cost-effective compared with BCP or CP in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic, nonsquamous NSCLC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY.”
Source: [Wan et al. (2019)](https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32368)
## 2 Utility weights
### 2.1 Utility weights from analyses of Ivonescimab
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease and hematologic adverse events, EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC: Long et al. (2025)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and progressed EGFR-mutated nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer and disutilities for hematologic adverse events, used in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy model summarized in section 4.1.
> “Regrettably, the HARMONi-A study did not report data on quality of life, and thus a model of the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab versus docetaxel as a second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC in China was used as a reference, using PFS and PD health utility values of 0.789 and 0.674, respectively”
Source: [Long et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12170261/)
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “Utility of PFS” | “0.789 (0.6312–0.9468)” |
| “Utility of PD” | “0.674 (0.5392–0.8088)” |
| “Disutility of WBC count decreased” | “0.090 (0.072–0.108)” |
| “Disutility of neutrophil count decreased” | “0.090 (0.072–0.108)” |
| “Disutility of anemia” | “0.070 (0.056–0.084)” |
| “Disutility of platelet count decreased” | “0.110 (0.088–0.132)” |
Source: [Long et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12170261/)
### 2.2 Utility weights for the same indication
#### Utility weights for progressed disease and adverse events of sintilimab-based therapy, EGFR-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy: Peng et al. (2024)
Relevance: Utilities for progressed disease and for stable disease by prior EGFR-TKI treatment, and disutilities for adverse events from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, in a Chinese model of sintilimab-based therapy after EGFR-TKI progression.
Access: Free full text
Not quoted: The adverse event disutilities are reported in the supplementary S5 Table, which the PMC page does not carry as text.
> “Chinese-specific health utilities were used in the model, with a score of 0.70300 assigned to the PD heath state”
> “The score for the SD health state for each treatment arm varied depending on the patient’s previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment status (i.e., the number of lines of TKI treatment received before).”
> “The disutility for each AE was obtained from the Institute for clinical and economic review”
Source: [Peng et al. (2024)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11488704/)
### 2.3 Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease, EGFR-mutated NSCLC after first-line EGFR TKI therapy: Wu et al. (2018)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and progressed states in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy.
Access: Free full text
> “Health utility values for each health stage were adopted from a recently published international study that assessed utilities for advanced NSCLC and complications associated with treatment in the United Kingdom, Australia, France, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, and Republic of Korea using a time trade-off technique”
Source: [Wu et al. (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2017.10.012)
| Health state | United States | People's Republic of China |
| --- | --- | --- |
| “PFS” | “0.84 (0.536–0.883)” | “0.804 (0.536–0.883)” |
| “PS” | “0.166 (0.05–0.473)” | “0.321 (0.05–0.473)” |
Source: [Wu et al. (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2017.10.012)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressive disease in the United States and China, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC: Wu et al. (2025)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and progressive EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, sourced from the literature, with separate United States and China values.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “Health-state utilities were sourced from the literature.”
Source: [Wu et al. (2025)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40220717/)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease and adverse events, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC: Guan et al. (2019)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and progressed EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and for adverse events, from a Chinese model of osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
Source: [Guan et al. (2019)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31607559/)
#### Utility weights by treatment response and progression status, EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC after EGFR TKI therapy: Bertranou et al. (2018)
Relevance: EQ-5D utilities valued with UK tariffs by treatment response and progression status in EGFR T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after EGFR-TKI therapy.
Access: Free full text
Not quoted: The scenario utility weights by treatment response and EQ-5D valuation set are reported in Table 3 of the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “For progression-free and progressed disease, utility values were derived from EQ-5D patient-level data collected in the AURA2 (5-level questionnaire) and IMPRESS (3-level questionnaire) studies.”
> “Utilities were calculated applying the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk index values”
> “The weighted progression-free utility values are 0.805 and 0.778, respectively.”
> “The mean progressed disease utility value is 0.715 (SD = 0.029).”
> “Utility decrements associated with adverse events were sourced from a study by Nafees et al.”
Source: [Bertranou et al. (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1377718)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressive disease on EGFR TKI, chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and best supportive care, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC: Ezeife et al. (2018)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free disease on an EGFR-TKI, progressive disease on an EGFR-TKI or on chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and best supportive care in EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which this page does not quote.
> “A Markov model was developed to project the outcomes and direct medical costs of initial treatment with osimertinib or current standard-of-care (SoC) EGFR TKIs, gefinitib or afatinib, in patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.”
> “Model outcomes included costs (in 2018 Canadian dollars), life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the cost utility of osimertinib compared to SoC EGFR TKI, or incremental cost per QALY gained.”
Source: [Ezeife et al. (2018)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30429004/)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressed disease and adverse events, metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: Wan et al. (2019)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free and progressed nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer and for adverse events of atezolizumab, bevacizumab, and platinum chemotherapy, from a United States payer model.
Access: Free full text
> “Health utility values of all health states were derived from published studies that measured health utilities for metastatic NSCLC using a standard gamble and time trade-off.”
> “We assigned a utility of 0.840 for all patients receiving first-line treatment”
> “and 0.473 for patients receiving second-line treatment.”
Source: [Wan et al. (2019)](https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32368)
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “PFS” | “0.840” |
| “Disease progression” | “0.473” |
| “Anemia” | “−0.073” |
| “Diarrhea” | “−0.320” |
| “Neutropenia” | “−0.460” |
| “Hypertension” | “−0.050” |
| “Febrile neutropenia” | “−0.500” |
| “Alopecia” | “−0.130” |
Source: [Wan et al. (2019)](https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32368)
### 2.4 Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
## 3 Search strategy
| Dataset | Query | Results |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Ratios | ivonescimab OR AK112 OR "SMT112" | 1 |
| Methods | ivonescimab OR zipalertinib OR zanzalintinib | 1 |
| Ratios | amivantamab | 7 |
| Ratios | EGFR AND "lung" | 348 |
| Ratios | "MARIPOSA-2" OR lazertinib | 7 |
| Ratios | datopotamab OR "patritumab" | 0 |
| Ratios | "IMpower150" OR (atezolizumab AND bevacizumab AND "EGFR") | 3 |
| Ratios | T790M OR "AURA3" | 34 |
| Ratios | "EGFR" AND "second-line" | 67 |
| Ratios | "tyrosine kinase inhibitor" AND "EGFR" AND "progression" | 19 |
| Ratios | "KEYNOTE-189" | 41 |
| Ratios | pemetrexed AND maintenance | 42 |
| Ratios | sintilimab AND "EGFR" | 5 |
| Ratios | savolitinib OR "MET amplification" | 1 |
| Weights | "EGFR" AND "lung" | 542 |
| Ratios | bispecific AND "lung" | 0 |
| Ratios | bevacizumab AND erlotinib | 38 |
| Ratios | ramucirumab AND "EGFR" | 1 |
| Ratios | atezolizumab AND "EGFR" | 22 |
| Ratios | "tislelizumab" AND "EGFR" | 1 |
| Ratios | "camrelizumab" AND "EGFR" | 7 |
## Related pages
- [Ivonescimab: EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer.md)
- [Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: Terms and abbreviations](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/terms-and-abbreviations) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/terms-and-abbreviations.md)
- [Ivonescimab: EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/executive-summary) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/executive-summary.md)
- [Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: Product information and disease description](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/product-information-and-disease-description) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/product-information-and-disease-description.md)
- [Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: Clinical evidence](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/clinical-evidence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/clinical-evidence.md)
- [Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: Economic information and modeling report](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/economics) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/economics.md)
- [Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: References](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/references) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/references.md)
- [Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: prevalence by geography](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/prevalence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/ivonescimab--egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/prevalence.md)