ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Battle against time for innovative cancer treatment: an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of pemigatinib in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a rare cancer. In 2023, Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Administration granted provisional payment for pemigatinib for patients with advanced ICC and FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. Previous analyses of the 2020 FIGHT-202 trial found pemigatinib was not cost-effective; however, updated 2024 data showed promising long-term benefits. This study aimed to reassess the cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib for advanced ICC with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements from the perspective of the Taiwanese healthcare payer.
methodsWe used a three-state partitioned survival model to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib compared to mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV, based on data from the updated FIGHT-202, ABC-06, and updated NIFTY pivotal trials. Utility, disutility, and cost parameters were derived from published sources. The primary measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the break-even year and main parameters influencing cost-effectiveness analysis results.
resultsPemigatinib was found to be cost-effective with high certainty (mFOLFOX: ICER = US$83,475, probability = 81.4%; 5-FU/LV: ICER = US$84,386, probability = 79.9%). The updates to the FIGHT-202 and NIFTY trials significantly increased the expected value of information (mFOLFOX: US$30,405; 5-FU/LV: US$28,851). Although pemigatinib incurred higher cumulative costs initially, the break-even point was reached between 7.6 and 7.7 years. The key factors influencing the cost-effectiveness results were the use of updated FIGHT-202 trial data and a lifetime simulation horizon.
conclusionPemigatinib is cost-effective with updated long-term benefits from the pivotal trial in the lifetime simulation for advanced patients with advanced ICC and FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. Given the rarity of advanced ICC, applying updated pivotal trial data with local real-world data for cost-effectiveness reassessment can be an efficient way under Taiwan’s Provisional Payment scheme.
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.