ArticleScientific reports2026
Cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib versus placebo for advanced neuroendocrine tumors from crossover-adjusted analysis in the United States and China.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Abstract
Cabozantinib has demonstrated a notable benefit in prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This study provides the first cost-effectiveness assessment of cabozantinib from the perspectives of both the U.S. healthcare payer and the Chinese healthcare system. A Markov state-transition model was developed to evaluate the economic impact of cabozantinib, incorporating both U.S. and Chinese healthcare perspectives. The key outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Given the high crossover rate in the control group, its impact on the results was carefully analyzed. In the extrapancreatic NET (EPNET) cohort, where 33.00% of patients crossed over, cabozantinib resulted in an ICER of $78,705.52 per QALY in China and $412,189.62 per QALY in the U.S., both exceeding the willingness-to-pay thresholds of $40,354.27 per QALY in China and $150,000.00 per QALY in the U.S. In the pancreatic NET (PNET) cohort, with a 41.00% crossover, cabozantinib demonstrated greater cost-effectiveness. In China, it achieved an ICER of $11,095.91 per QALY, with an INHB of 0.06 QALYs, an INMB of $2,497.95, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) probability of 52.39%. In the U.S., cabozantinib provided an incremental gain of 0.09 QALYs at an additional cost of $2,334.04, yielding an ICER of $24,571.17 per QALY, with an INHB of 0.08 QALYs, an INMB of $11,914.62, and a PSA probability of 52.48%. Cabozantinib is cost-effective for PNETs in both China and the U.S., but not in the EPNET cohort. Due to the high crossover rate, discrepancies may arise when comparing ICER values with other economic evaluation metrics, such as INHB, INMB, one-way sensitivity analysis, and PSA outcomes.
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.