ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of cadonilimab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option in HER-2-negative advanced gastric cancer.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Camrelizumab plus CAPOX versus CAPOX for HER2-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using cadonilimab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy in HER-2-negative advanced gastric cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted utilizing a partitioned survival model to simulate the expected costs and outcomes associated with the treatment of patients with cadonilimab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy over a 10 years lifetime horizon. Cost data were sourced from published literature and national databases. Data on treatment efficacy, adverse events, and transition probabilities were derived from the phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial. The WTP threshold in this study was established at 40,343.68 USD per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results and assess the impact of variations in key parameters on the cost-effectiveness outcomes. Results: The base case analysis revealed that in all population of randomized patients, treatment with cadonilimab resulted in an incremental gain of 1.08 QALYs compared to chemotherapy, at an incremental cost of 58,862.61 USD. The ICER for this cohort was calculated to be 54,502.42 USD per QALY. In the subgroup of patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, patients treated with cadonilimab experienced a greater increase in 1.33 QALYs compared to chemotherapy, at an incremental cost of 35,661.87 USD. The ICER for this subgroup was 26,813.44 USD per QALY. Sensitivity analyses conducted demonstrated the robustness of the results to variations in model inputs and assumptions. Moreover, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that cadonilimab in combination with chemotherapy had a 4.70 and 93.90% probabilities of being considered cost-effective at a WTP threshold of 40,343.68 USD per QALY for the all randomized patient group and the subgroup of patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, respectively. Conclusion: The addition of cadonilimab to standard chemotherapy for first line treatment of HER-2-negative advanced gastric cancer may not be considered a cost-effective option compared to chemotherapy alone. However, for the subgroup of patients with PD-L1CPS ≥ 5, the ICER was 26,813.44 USD per QALY, indicating that this treatment approach could potentially be deemed cost-effective 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.