OBJECTIVES:   Several new NSCLC agents are expected to enter market over the next 10 years.  In an era focused on increased cost containment and comparative effectiveness, it will be important to evaluate the value of new treatments against existing comparators based on clinical and health economic and outcomes research evidence.  The purpose of this study is to provide a comparative review of the clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes for selected targeted late-stage NSCLC therapies and evaluate pharmacoeconomic trends.  METHODS:   Sixteen targeted therapies, currently approved or late pipeline, were identified for inclusion herein.  A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature for Phase III studies and US pharmacoeconomic evaluations in support of these products was conducted using PubMed, related-articles, and ancestral searches.  To capture preliminary/recent studies, conference proceedings from clinical and pharmacoeconomic research conferences were hand-searched.  An extraction grid was built to record key comparable attributes of each study type (e.g., study origin, methods and results) and identify trends in health economic evidence platforms.  RESULTS:   We identified 70 original clinical, economic or patient-reported outcomes evaluations that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.  Phase III trials showed that progression free survival (PFS) varied by 1-2 months across treatments and most commonly reported adverse events varied, ranging from reports of pulmonary hemorrhage (bevacizumab) to rash and diarrhea (erlotinib and gefitinib).  Few economic studies have been conducted in support of current treatments in the US; available studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of EGFR testing (erlotinib) and budget impact of adding new treatments to plan (erlotinib and pemetrexed).  Inclusion of quality of life endpoints (e.g., lung cancer scale, FACT-L and EORTC) in trials is increasingly common.  CONCLUSIONS:   To date, few pharmacoeconomic evaluations have been published or presented at conferences in support of targeted NSCLC agents but current pharmacoeconomic platforms are useful for establishing future benchmarks for new entrants.