ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of Atezolizumab plus Aevacizumab and Atezolizumab plus Aabozantinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAtezolizumab combined with either bevacizumab (atezo-beva) or cabozantinib (atezo-cabo) has been granted approval for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Given the current uncertainty among physicians and patients regarding the optimal choice between these two strategies, it becomes imperative to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare their relative benefits.
objectiveAssessing the cost-effectiveness of atezo-beva compared to atezo-cabo in the treatment of advanced HCC.
methodsBoth the network treatment comparison and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the IMbrave150 and the COSMIC-312 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The network treatment comparison which included 761 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a Markov model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.
resultsCompared with the atezo-cabo group, atezo-beva group respectively increased 0.528 life years and 0.365 QALYs, with costs per patient increasing by $506,639, and the ICER was $1,388,052.054 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis results indicated that the hazard ratios of OS and HR of PFS were the most sensitive factors in the model. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the WTP threshold is $150,000 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness probabilities of the atezo-beva group and atezo-cabo group were 7.09% and 92.91% respectively.
conclusionsFindings from this cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that, compared to atezo-cabo, atezo-beva brought better OS benefits to advanced HCC patients, but also brought higher economic burden, considering the willingness-to-pay threshold was $150 000 per QALY, atezo-beva was not considered cost-effective.
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.