ArticlePharmacoEconomics2023
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a New Second-Line Treatment Regimen for Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Biomarker-Driven Targeted Therapy of Pemigatinib Versus 5-FU Chemotherapy.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib versus placebo for advanced neuroendocrine tumors from crossover-adjusted analysis in the United States and China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Battle against time for innovative cancer treatment: an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of pemigatinib in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as the second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Economic value of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China and the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Modeling brain metastases in cost effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab for extensive stage small cell lung cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Sugemalimab Plus CAPOX in Treating Advanced Gastric Cancer: Analysis from the GEMSTONE-303 Trial.Cancers · 2025Article
- Molecular Tumor Board-Guided Targeted Treatments for Biliary Tract Cancers in a Publicly Funded Healthcare System.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cadonilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric cancer: evidence to inform drug pricing in the U.S. and China.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of ivosidenib versus chemotherapy for previously treated IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib as a second-line treatment for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 fusions in Taiwan: from the evidence of the phase II trial and the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends a second-line treatment of pemigatinib for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions/rearrangements and modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) for those without FGFR2 alterations. However, these regimens are not yet covered by Taiwa's National Health Insurance. This cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the pemigatinib/mFOLFOX regimen as the second-line treatment for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on FGFR2 status in comparison with the regimen of fluorouracil chemotherapy and provided a cost-effectiveness analysis-based reference price for pemigatinib.
methodsA three-state partitioned survival model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who did not respond to first-line therapy. Overall and progression-free survival functions of pemigatinib, mFOLFOX, and fluorouracil were estimated from the FIGHT-202, ABC-06, and NIFTY trials, respectively. The utility of health states and disutility of adverse events were obtained from the literature. The genetic testing fee and price of pemigatinib were set as the market price. Other costs related to advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were calculated using National Health Insurance claims data. The willingness-to-pay threshold was three times the gross domestic product per capita in 2021 (NT$2,889,684). A 3% discount rate was applied to quality-adjusted life-years and costs. Scenario analyses included a gradual price reduction of pemigatinib, alternative survival models, application of a National Health Insurance payment conversion factor to non-medication costs, and consideration of life-years as effectiveness. A deterministic sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a value of information analysis were performed.
resultsThe new regimen provided an incremental 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years, with incremental costs of NT$459,697, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of NT$3,411,098 per quality-adjusted life-year and an incremental net monetary benefit of - NT$70,268. The new regimen was found to be 53.2% cost effective in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The expected value of uncertainty measured by the expected value of perfect information was NT$80,695/person. In scenario analyses, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive when the price of pemigatinib was reduced by 40% or more. When applying a conversion factor to non-medical costs, the probability of the new regimen being cost effective was slightly increased from 53.2 to 56.5% compared with the base-case analysis. The utility and the cost of the new regimen were the main drivers of uncertainty.
conclusionsAlthough the new second-line genetic-based and biomarker-driven regimen of pemigatinib/mFOLFOX appears not cost effective for patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the base-case analysis, our analysis suggests it is highly likely to be cost effective in the case of a 40% price reduction on pemigatinib.
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.