ArticleBMJ open2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding transarterial chemoembolisation to lenvatinib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- The cost effectiveness of toripalimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Treatment for intermediate and advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: does systemic therapy synergize the therapeutic efficacy of TACE?Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (LEN) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) (LEN-TACE) and LEN alone to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
designA three-state partitioned survival model using clinical survival data from a phase III LAUNCH trial, a 5-year time horizon for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of LEN-TACE. Clinical inputs were extracted from the LAUNCH trial, with outcomes extrapolated using standard and flexible parametric survival models. Costs and utilities derived from published literature were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.
settingThe Chinese healthcare system perspective.
participantsA hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with advanced HCC.
interventionsTACE plus LEN versus LEN. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsBase-case analysis revealed that LEN-TACE would be cost-effective in China at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37 663 per QALYs, with improved effectiveness of 0.382 QALYs and additional cost of $12 151 (ICER: $31 808 per QALY). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that LEN-TACE had a 93.5% probability of cost-effectiveness at WTP threshold of three times gross domestic product per capital ($37 663). One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the duration of LEN treatment in both two arms, utility of progression-free survival and the cost of TACE had a greater impact on the stability of ICER values. Scenario analyses results were in line with base-case analysis.
conclusionsLEN-TACE might be a cost-effective strategy compared with LEN for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC in China.
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.