At the title/abstract level, 721 records were screened in the original search and 43 records were screened during the update; 81 reports of the 721 records (78 from the original search and three from the update) were selected for full-text review. As part of the original search, four congress abstracts were identified through hand-searching and 82 reports from HTA bodies were reviewed for eligibility; no additional congress abstracts or HTA reports were identified as part of the update search. In total, 59 unique studies reporting on an economic evaluation (summarized in 67 reports) were selected for data extraction (see Fig. 1 for details on both the original and updated searches). Among the 67 reports, 33 were published as manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals, and six as conference abstracts [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68], 20 were HTA submission documents [69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88], and eight were related reports [89,90,91,92,93,94,95]. The full list of the 67 reports is presented in Online Resource Table 4. Among the eight related reports, one was an abridged secondary publication [96] and seven were resubmission documents to an HTA body [89,90,91,92,93,94,95]; these eight reports were not included as part of summary analysis.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. *These conferences were searched as part of the original SLR. **Not an HTA body. †Search by intervention (brand and generic name) since it is not possible to search by indication. AACR American Association for Cancer Research, ASCO American Society of Clinical Oncology, BTOG British Thoracic Oncology Group, CADTH Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, ELCC European Lung Cancer Congress, ESMO European Society for Medical Oncology, EU European Union, HAS French National Health Authority (Haute Autorité de Santé), HTA health technology assessment, IASLC International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, ICER Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, IQWiG Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss/Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care), ISPOR The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, NHS EED National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database, NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, PBAC Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, SLR systematic literature review, SMC Scottish Medicines Consortium, TAT targeted anticancer therapies, TLV Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (Tandvårds-och läkemedelsförmånsverket), ZIN National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland)

Study characteristics for the included economic evaluations are summarized in Table 2. The global distribution of identified economic evaluations is illustrated in Fig. 2.

World map of economic evaluations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations

The model conceptualization is summarized in Table 3.

Eighteen studies explicitly described the intended audience [30,31,32, 39, 49, 50, 55,56,57, 59,60,61, 66, 84,85,86,87,88]. Among these studies, 13 categorized the audience as a medical/clinical decision maker [30,31,32, 39, 49, 50, 55,56,57, 59,60,61, 66] and five were NICE submission documents that specified the audience as ‘[NICE] consultees and commentators’ [84,85,86,87,88]. The results of the economic evaluations were used to directly support decisions regarding reimbursement via HTA documents (n = 20) [69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,