ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 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
- Cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China: an economic evaluation based on five-year overall survival data from the HIMALAYA trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a modeling study with price threshold analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative analysis in China, the United States and Europe.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- 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 of immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The goal of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab and sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Methods: A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken within the framework of a partitioned survival model to accurately gage the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tislelizumab compared to sorafenib. The model incorporated relevant clinical data and all survival rates were from RATIONALE-301 trials. The stability of the partitioned survival model was assessed by performing one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses. Results: The total cost incurred for the tislelizumab treatment was $16181.24, whereas the sorafenib was $14306.87. The tislelizumab regimen resulted in a significant increase of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an extra cost of $1874.37 as compared to chemotherapy. The ICER was $10413.17 per QALY, which was found to be below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37304.34/QALY. The results of the sensitivity analysis found that no fluctuations in any of the factors affected our results, even when these parameters fluctuated. Conclusion: Tislelizumab appears to be a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma when compared to sorafenib in China. These findings can inform decision-making processes regarding the selection of the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
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.