ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of sorafenib, lenvatinib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sintilimab plus bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib (E7080) Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Subjects With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma
A Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Compared With Sorafenib in Patients With Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma
A Randomized, Open-label，Multi-center Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Sintilimab and IBI305 Compared to Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. （ORIENT-32）
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of cost-effectiveness of Chinese PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- The cost effectiveness of toripalimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based first-line therapies for advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Transcription factor YBX1 orchestrates drug resistance and tumor progression in HCC.Drug discovery today · 2025Review
- Article
- Combination immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy shows promising efficacy in NSCLC patients with recurrent or refractory brain metastases and negative driver genes.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Observational
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
- Hepatocellular carcinoma and AIM2: Therapeutic potential through regulation of autophagy and macrophage polarization.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2024Article
- Promising first-line immuno-combination therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2024Review
- First-Line Camrelizumab Plus Rivoceranib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A China-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Article
- Tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide, especially in China. According to the 2021 Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, sorafenib, lenvatinib, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, and sintilimab combined with bevacizumab are recommended as first-line treatment options for advanced HCC. This study provides a cost-effectiveness analysis of these treatments from the patient perspective.
methodsA partitioned survival model was established using the TreeAge 2019 software to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. The model includes three states, namely progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Clinical data were derived from three randomized controlled studies involving patients with advanced HCC who received the following treatment: sorafenib and lenvatinib (NCT01761266); atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03434379); and sintilimab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03794440). Cost and clinical preference data were obtained from the literature and interviews with clinicians.
resultsAll compared with sorafenib therapy, lenvatinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$188,625.25 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; sintilimab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$75,150.32 per QALY gained; and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$144,513.71 per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with sorafenib achieved a 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of US$36,600/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the medical insurance reimbursement ratio and drug prices.
conclusionsIn this economic evaluation, therapy with lenvatinib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab generated incremental QALYs compared with sorafenib; however, these regimens were not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$36,600 per QALY. Therefore, some patients may achieve preferred economic outcomes from these three therapies by tailoring the regimen based on individual patient factors.
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.