ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Multinational cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological and Targeted Therapies in the Multidisciplinary Management of Gastrointestinal Cancers.Cancers · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy versus chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus weekly paclitaxel for PD-L1-positive platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer in the United States and China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Cadonilimab plus chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in China and the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immunotherapy is a promising treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin remains unclear across different healthcare systems. This study evaluates its international cost-effectiveness in four countries. Methods: A partitioned survival analysis model was developed using data from the KEYNOTE-966 trial to compare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone, from the healthcare system perspective of China, Japan, the United States, and Switzerland. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were used to identify key factors influencing the ICER. Results: The base-case analysis showed that pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin provided additional quality-adjusted life year gains of 0.14 in China, Japan, and the United States, and 0.15 in Switzerland. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in all four countries exceeded their respective willingness-to-pay thresholds, indicating limited cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis identified drug price and utility value of progression-free survival as key factors. In the United States, Japan, and Switzerland, an 80-95% reduction in pembrolizumab's price was necessary for cost-effectiveness, while in China, a reduction greater than 95% was required. Conclusion: Despite clinical benefits, pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer is not cost-effective at current prices and willingness-to-pay thresholds. Adjusting drug pricing and healthcare policies is crucial for enhancing the global economic viability of this treatment strategy.
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.