ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Immunotherapy plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Contribution of Dostarlimab to First-Line Treatment of Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer in Spain: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Recurrent Distant Metastatic Endometrial Cancer Treated with Immunotherapy with Pembrolizumab: A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- MLH1 promoter methylation-induced dMMR/MSS in endometrial cancer: case report.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of perioperative durvalumab plus FLOT for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in the United States.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy in advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab with chemotherapy and maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib for advanced endometrial cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer in the United States.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Drug discovery in advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer: Recent advances.Oncology research · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment strategies involving first-line pembrolizumab with trastuzumab and chemotherapy for unresectable metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them.
methodsBased on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers' perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay.
resultsIn the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively.
conclusionIn the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.
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.