ArticleScientific reports2025
The cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient advanced colorectal cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research probing the clinical utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) supports the development of novel, efficacious approaches to treating colorectal cancer (CRC) patients without chemotherapy. Therapeutic innovations, however, need to be evaluated in light of real-world economic considerations. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of first-line dual-immunotherapies, single immunotherapy, and chemotherapies in the treatment of microsatellite-instability-high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) advanced CRC from the perspective of American healthcare systems. Individual patient data (IPD) from the KEYNOTE-177 and CheckMate-8HW trials were collected with IPDfromKM and used to develop a Markov model with a 30-year duration and three mutually exclusive health states, providing a framework for the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of first-line nivolumab together with ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy for treating MSI-H/dMMR advanced CRC. Primary outcomes consisted of total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values, and incremental net-health benefits (INHB) at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000/QALY in the USA. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab ($482,416 [18.72 QALYs]) and pembrolizumab ($336,617 [12.21 QALYs]) increased cost (effectiveness) by $145,800 (5.30 QALYs) than chemotherapy ($374,728 [10.07 QALYs]), respectively. The corresponding ICER was $13,670/QALY and -$14,768/QALY, with INHB of 2.52 and 6.80 QALYs, respectively. It was further found that the ICER and INHB of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus pembrolizumab were $22,386/QALY and 3.84 QALYs, respectively. In addition, the established model is stable. First-line immunotherapeutic treatments for MSI-H/dMMR advanced CRC cases in the USA appears to be cost-effective, with a dual-immunotherapeutic regimen consisting of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being preferable.
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.