ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cabozantinib combined with atezolizumab has been shown to prolong progression-free survival in first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of this regimen remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC from the perspectives of the Chinese health system and the US payers. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed based on a phase III randomized clinical trial (COSMIC-312) to compare the health benefits and economic outcomes of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. Data recorded included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: From the perspectives of the US payers and the Chinese health system, the base-case ICER values for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab compared to sorafenib were $-2,731,994.74/QALY and $-2,225,520.14/QALY, respectively. Sorafenib achieved an absolute dominance in terms of cost-effectiveness, offering greater benefits at a lower cost. The models were most sensitive to the utility values for progression-free survival and overall survival. Subgroup analyses also demonstrated that cabozantinib plus atezolizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. Conclusion: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab was not a cost-effective treatment option for HCC when compared to sorafenib from both the Chinese healthcare system and the US payer perspectives.
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.