Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39105210›Full record

ArticleJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2024

Additional Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy to Sorafenib Was Cost-Effective for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis.

Qi-Feng Chen, Xiong-Ying Jiang, Yue Hu, Song Chen, Jun-Zhe Yi, Sui-Xing Zhong, Jiong-Liang Wang, Ning Lyu, Ming Zhao

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Qi-Feng Chen *Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xiong-Ying Jiang *Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-4488-9326
Yue Hu *Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Song ChenDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jun-Zhe YiDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Sui-Xing ZhongDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jiong-Liang WangDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ning LyuDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-8254-1040
Ming ZhaoDepartment of Minimally Invasive Interventional Therapy, Liver Cancer Study and Service Group, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The combination of sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (SoHAIC) has shown to enhance overall survival rates in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and major portal vein tumor thrombosis (HCC-Vp3-4) compared to sorafenib alone. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SoHAIC versus sorafenib for the treatment of HCC-Vp3-4, taking into account the viewpoint of Chinese healthcare payers. Methods: This pharmacoeconomic study employed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating HCC-Vp3-4 with SoHAIC in comparison to sorafenib. The patient characteristics were drawn from individuals from the trial conducted between June 2017 and November 2019, with cost and health value data sourced from published literature. The primary outcome measure in this research was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which indicates the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per QALY was set at $30,492.00. Furthermore, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to validate the consistency of the results. Results: In the baseline scenario, sorafenib resulted in 0.42 QALY at a cost of $10,507.89, while SoHAIC generated 1.66 QALY at a cost of $32,971.56. When comparing SoHAIC to sorafenib, the ICER was $18,237.20 per QALY, which was below the WTP threshold per QALY. Furthermore, the 1-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER remained within the WTP threshold despite fluctuations in variables. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SoHAIC had a 98.8% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold, considering a wide range of parameters. Conclusion: In this cost-effectiveness evaluation, SoHAIC demonstrated cost-effectiveness over sorafenib for HCC with major portal vein tumor thrombosis, as observed from the perspective of a Chinese payer.

Indexed as

Cost-effectivenessHAICHCCportal vein tumor thrombosissorafenib

Identifiers

PMID39105210
PMCPMC11298563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.