ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced esophageal carcinoma in the United States.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China: a comprehensive analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Adagrasib in the treatment of KRASTranslational cancer research · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX versus Nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Prospective multicenter study of camrelizumab in real-world settings for asian patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Osimertinib in the treatment of resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Immune checkpoint inhibitorsTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Cemiplimab combined with chemotherapyTherapeutic advances in medical oncology · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The national Comprehensive Cancer Network has suggested pembrolizumab as a second-line therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. However, despite the increased survival rate associated with pembrolizumab in these patient population, the high cost of pembrolizumab may influence its antitumor effect. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy as second-line treatments for esophageal carcinoma (EC) based on KEYNOTE-181 trial. Methods: A Markov model was constructed using TreeAge 2021 based on three different groups: all intent-to-treat patients (ITT population), patients with ESCC (ESCC population), and patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (CPS ≥10 population). Incremental cost, Incremental effect, Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Analyses were conducted on the setting of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 from the US perspective. Results: The ICERs for pembrolizumab were $157,589.545 per QALY, $60,238.823 per QALY, and $100,114.929 per QALY compared with chemotherapy in the ITT, ESCC, and CPS≥10 populations, respectively. The ICER of the ITT population was higher than $150,000, suggesting that pembrolizumab was not a cost-effective treatment scheme in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≤ 10 or esophageal adenocarcinoma. The ICER was < $150,000 in the ESCC and CPS≥10 populations, indicating that pembrolizumab was cost-effective in these two subgroups. Conclusion: The determining of pembrolizumab as a cost-effective second-line therapy for EC in the United States depends on the histologic type and PD-L1 expression.
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.