ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2026
Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based first-line therapies for advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment landscape of advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the comparative clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various ICI-based combination therapies remain unclear. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of the 12 first-line ICI-based therapies for advanced or unresectable HCC under two distinct healthcare systems-China and the United States. Design: A model-based pharmacoeconomic analysis. Methods: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare first-line ICI-based therapies in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, death) was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were primary outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model uncertainty. Results: The NMA included 11 randomized clinical trials comprising 7289 patients. Four ICI-based regimens (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar, and penpulimab plus anlotinib) were associated with significantly improved OS and PFS compared with sorafenib. In China, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib and tislelizumab were cost-effective compared with sorafenib, with ICERs of $17,624.64 and $1971.14 per QALY, respectively. In the United States, no ICI-based therapy was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY; sorafenib remained the most cost-effective option. ICERs were most sensitive to drug costs, utility values, and discount rates. Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib represents a cost-effective first-line therapy for advanced or unresectable HCC in China. In the United States, current ICI-based therapies are not cost-effective at existing prices. These findings may inform treatment selection and health policy decision-making in different healthcare systems.
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.