Trial reportPloS one2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 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
- Economic evaluation of a multi-component obesity prevention intervention in Chinese primary schools.BMC medicine · 2025Trial
- CyberKnife SBRT plus lenvatinib and tislelizumab versus doublet systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with macrovascular invasion: A real-world IPTW-adjusted study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Anlotinib Plus Penpulimab Versus Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of a new and more effective treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma-from a Chinese perspective.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Relative treatment effects of first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2025Review
- Critical analysis of the liver cancer policies and programs in China: implications for international liver cancer control.Global health research and policy · 2025Article
- Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Cadonilimab in first-line treatment of advanced HER2-negative gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China based on the EV-302 trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.
methodsA lifetime partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to cost-effectively analyze Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. The clinical and safety data were derived from a recently randomized clinical trial (RATIONALE-301). Utilities were collected from the published literature. Costs were obtained from an open-access database (http://www.yaozh.com) and previous studies. The model cycle was 21 days, according to the RATIONALE-301 study, and the simulation period was patients' lifetime. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. one-way sensitivity analysis (OSWA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to analyze the uncertainty of parameters and to adjust and verify the stability of the baseline results.
resultsThe Tislelizumab group generated a cost of $39,746.34 and brought health benefits to 2.146 QALYs, while the cost and utility of the Sorafenib group were $26750.95 and 1.578 QALYs, respectively. The Tislelizumab group increased QALYs by 0.568, the incremental cost was $12995.39, and the ICER was $22869.64/QALY, lower than the willingness to pay threshold (WTP). OSWA results showed that the utility of progressed disease (PD), cost of Camrelizumab, and cost of Tislelizumab were the main factors affecting the ICER. PSA results showed that, within 1000 times the Monte Carlo simulation, the cost of the Tislelizumab group was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China ($37653/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) revealed that when WTP was no less than $12251.00, the Tislelizumab group was the dominant scheme, and the economic advantage grew with an increasing WTP. When WTP ≥ $19000.00, the Tislelizumab group became the absolute economic advantage.
conclusionUnder the current economic conditions in China, the Tislelizumab therapeutic scheme is more cost-effective than the Sorafenib therapeutic scheme for treating patients with unresectable HCC.
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.