What question did this study set out to answer?

This analysis aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tepotinib compared to capmatinib as a second-line treatment for NSCLC.

April 7, 2026Open Access

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tepotinib vs capmatinib as subsequent therapy in MET exon 14-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

Key Points

This analysis aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tepotinib compared to capmatinib as a second-line treatment for NSCLC.
Conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis between tepotinib and capmatinib.
Targeted population includes patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
Compared treatment costs and outcomes in a Chinese healthcare setting.
Tepotinib was found to be less cost-effective than capmatinib.
Capmatinib is recommended as the preferable second-line treatment option for economic reasons.

Abstract

Tepotinib was not cost-effective compared to Capmatinib as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tepotinib vs capmatinib as subsequent therapy in MET exon 14-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider