ArticleScientific reports2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of nimotuzumab combined with gemcitabine for K-Ras wild type locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor treating field plus chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An international cost-effectiveness analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer in China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic non‑squamous non‑small cell lung cancer with EGFR variant in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The phase III NOTABLE trial has revealed that nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine achieves greater clinical benefit in the first-line treating K-Ras wild type locally advanced (LA) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), compared to gemcitabine. Hence, herein, we examined the cost-efficiency of introducing nimotuzumab to gemcitabine, relative to gemcitabinealone, in first-line K-Ras wild type LA or mPC therapy from a Chinese payer perspective. We generated an exhaustive decision-analytical Markov model using three exclusive health states to incorporate both clinical and economic consequences of nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone as first-line therapy patients with K-Ras wild type LA or mPC. Using a 10-year lifetime horizon, we assessed the total medical expenditure, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost‒effectiveness ratio (ICER) as the primary surrogate outcomes of our model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted via alteration of internally tweakable parameters, and further subgroup analyses were conducted as needed. The overall health surrogate outcomes were 2.94 QALYs ($215,799) among patients with nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine and 1.83 QALYs ($86,039) among patients with gemcitabine alone (ICER value, $117,263/QALY; Incremental net health benefit [INHB] value, - 2.46/QALY). Based on our sensitivity analysis, among all parameters, progression-free survival (PFS) utility was of utmost importance, and it exerted a considerable impact on our model. The ICER consistently well exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold and negative INHBs were observed across all patient subcategories with zero alteration recorded as cost-effective in the subgroup analyses. Nimotuzumab plus gemcitabine, relative to gemcitabine alone, is not a cost-effective first-line treatment among patients with K-Ras wild type LA or mPC at the current prices offered 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.