ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with surveillance for adjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma at high risk of recurrence in France.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02632409 (A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-blind, Multi-center Study of Adjuvant Nivolumab Versus Placebo in Subjects With High Risk Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
A Phase 3 Randomized, Double-blind, Multi-center Study of Adjuvant Nivolumab Versus Placebo in Subjects With High Risk Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma (CheckMate 274: CHECKpoint Pathway and nivoluMAb Clinical Trial Evaluation 274)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Reporting of Validation Efforts for Cancer Health Economic Decision Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology: Meeting highlights.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for adjuvant treatment of adults with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma at high risk of recurrence (MIUC-HR) and tumour cell expression PD-L1 ≥ 1% following radical resection from the payer perspective in France.
methodsA four-state (disease-free, loco-regional recurrence, distant recurrence, death) semi-Markov model was developed to simulate health outcomes and costs in a cohort of patients with MIUC-HR and tumour cell expression PD-L1 ≥ 1% following radical resection. Health state-specific costs and quality of life-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared between two treatment strategies (nivolumab, surveillance). The time horizon was 15 years. Clinical and utility inputs were modelled from the data obtained in the Phase III trial CheckMate 274 (#NCT02632409). Cost inputs were extracted from French sources (notably the French National Cost Study). Model outputs were life-years and QALYs overall and by health-state, total costs and cost components. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) between the two treatment strategies were calculated.
resultsLife-years were 7.3 for nivolumab and 5.2 for surveillance; QALYs were 4.7 for nivolumab and 3.3 for surveillance. The between-strategy difference in QALYs was essentially accrued in the disease-free state (nivolumab: 4.2, surveillance: 2.6). Total costs were €129,150 for nivolumab and €93,031 for surveillance. The principal cost components were nivolumab acquisition (€ 44,054) and disease management (nivolumab: €29,831; surveillance: €27,233). The estimated ICER was € 17,228/LY gained and the estimated ICUR was €25,806/QALY.
conclusionNivolumab in the adjuvant setting is likely to be cost-effective compared to surveillance in France.
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.