ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as the second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. 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
backgroundThe combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (LP) for advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma has demonstrated improved survival in a clinical study and has been endorsed by the European Society for Medical Oncology. However, the LP regimen is currently not covered by Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LP as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma (aEC) under Taiwan’s NHI.
methodsA 3-state partitioned survival model was used to analyze a hypothetical population of patients with aEC over 20 years. The overall and progression-free survival curves were obtained from the updated results of the Phase III trial 309/KEYNOTE-775 and extrapolated using a hybrid method. The pricing of the LP was based on the NHI fee schedule for other cancer treatments. Health state utilities and disutilities related to adverse events were obtained from the published literature. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was three times the GDP per capita in 2022 (NT$2,917,650). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were discounted at 3%. Scenario analyses included LP price reductions and time horizon adjustments. Deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and value of information analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty.
resultsLP provided an incremental gain of 0.92 QALYs at an incremental cost of NT$2,929,046, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of NT$3,197,177, which exceeded the WTP threshold. The major factors causing uncertainty were the time horizon and cost of the LP.
conclusionsLP is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for aEC unless its price is reduced by more than 20%.
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.