ArticleBMC health services research2026
Perioperative immunotherapy for advanced resectable melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies have shown the efficacy of perioperative immunotherapy in improving the event-free survival of patients with advanced resectable melanoma. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different perioperative immunotherapy treatment strategies versus adjuvant immunotherapy treatment strategies from the US payer perspective.
methodsTwo immunotherapy strategies were each compared with the corresponding standard adjuvant treatment in two Markov models: Model (1) perioperative nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus adjuvant nivolumab for stage III patients; model (2) perioperative pembrolizumab versus adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIB to IVC patients. Primary outcomes included direct costs, life-year gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost per QALY (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model outcomes.
resultsIn base-case analysis, perioperative nivolumab plus ipilimumab (versus adjuvant nivolumab) gained higher QALY (by 2.73) with cost-saving (by USD109,157) in model (1), and perioperative pembrolizumab (versus adjuvant pembrolizumab) gained higher QALY (by 2.29) with cost-saving (by USD130,157) in model (2). Both perioperative strategies were accepted as cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses found the base-case results robust to variation in all model parameters at willingness-to-pay threshold of 100,000 USD/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the two perioperative strategies were accepted as cost-effective in 100% of 10,000 simulations.
conclusionsPerioperative immunotherapies demonstrated cost-saving compared with adjuvant immunotherapies from the US payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.