ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of belzutifan versus everolimus for previously treated advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma in the United States and China.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- First-line immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of fuzuloparib, with or without apatinib, for BRCA mutation HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in 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
- Benmelstobart Plus Anlotinib Is Unlikely to Be Cost-Effective for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Integrated Disease Burden and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The LITESPARK-005 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of belzutifan in patients with previously treated clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of belzutifan compared to everolimus in treating patients with advanced ccRCC who have received at least one systemic therapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system and the US payers. Objectives: To provide previously treated ccRCC patients with the option of belzutifan and to offer recommendations regarding in China. Design: The cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed based on data from the LITESPARK-005 trial. Patients transitioned through three mutually exclusive health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease, and death. The model cycle length was set at 28 days, with a lifetime horizon. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from published literature and real-world healthcare data. The model estimated total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Price simulations, sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess model robustness. Results: The base-case analysis showed that belzutifan in China generated 2.038 QALYs at a total cost of $102,561.26 and an ICER of $54,430.16/QALY, which exceeded the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold ($39,076.44/QALY). Belzutifan in the United States generated 2.280 QALYs at a total cost of $796,227.28 with an ICER of $270,864.46/QALY, which significantly exceeded the WTP threshold ($150,000/QALY). The PFS utility value and the drug cost of belzutifan were the main factors affecting the change in ICER, whether in China or the United States. At current pricing, belzutifan was unlikely to be cost-effective. Price simulations indicated the belzutifan would be cost-effective when the price of belzutifan remained below $5.524/mg in the United States and $0.779/mg in China. Conclusion: Compared to everolimus, belzutifan is not cost-effective at its current price for treating previously treated RCC in the United States. In China, the belzutifan group was cost-effective when the price of belzutifan was less than $0.779/mg. This study suggests that reducing the price could substantially improve the economic viability of belzutifan.
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.