ReviewInnovations in pharmacy2019
Immuno-Oncology Medicines: Policy Implications and Economic Considerations.
Review in Innovations in pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Toripalimab regimen for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China and America.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of adebrelimab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in China.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tumor Treating Fields treatment in Chinese patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Economic evaluation of serplulimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Article
- Economic evaluation of toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant progress has taken place in the field of cancer immunotherapy in recent years. Cancer immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, have shown rather dramatic results and are believed to have completely transformed the field of oncology. However, these transformational therapies are more expensive than previous cancer therapies. As more cancer immunotherapy agents are being developed, with some already being marketed, it is important to consider how economic constraints will shape health policy and value assessment related to these agents. A number of strategies have been suggested to alleviate the price burden and the ensuing concerns about the sustainability of publicly funded healthcare systems. Among these strategies, value-based pricing (VBP) for innovative drugs dominates the headlines in the field of oncology. The specifics of how VBP may be implemented in the United States is still unclear. Nonetheless, policy reform and economic considerations will have to be incorporated into the planning of VBP. The objective of this paper is multifold: (i) to identify the factors affecting the impact of cancer immunotherapy on healthcare cost; (ii) to critically appraise current approaches used to assess the value of novel cancer therapies; (iii) to assess the methodological challenges associated with the economic evaluation of cancer immunotherapy. As the health care system in the U.S transitions toward a value-based model, the need for a formal value assessment framework is warranted in cancer immunotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.