ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
A comparative review of economic evaluations for immune checkpoint inhibitors in early stage and advanced stage cancer: focusing on pembrolizumab.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
Introduction: While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used in early stage cancers, how economic evaluation methods differ between early and advanced stages remains underexplored. This study aimed to compare methodological differences in economic evaluations between cancer stages and examine consistency between technology appraisals (TAs) and published articles, using pembrolizumab as an example. Methods: A systematic literature review identified economic evaluations of melanoma, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (protocol registered in PROSPERO [CRD42025646192]). Methodological characteristics and cost-effectiveness conclusions for pembrolizumab were compared between early and advanced stage articles. TAs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Canada's Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) were also reviewed. Results: Forty-one articles and 25 TAs were included. Economic evaluations in early stage cancers more frequently used Markov models, longer time horizons, distinct health states for recurrence and metastasis, cure assumptions, and more often concluded pembrolizumab to be cost-effective (p < 0.05). Differences between TAs and published articles were identified in time horizon and assumptions regarding treatment effect waning. Among the published articles, methodological choices related to time horizon, utility approach, and relative dose intensity (RDI) were associated with cost-effectiveness conclusions across cancer stages. Conclusion: Methodological variations in economic evaluations of pembrolizumab were observed between early stage and advanced stage cancers in published articles, as well as between TAs and published articles across both stages. This study highlights the need for stage-specific modeling and clearer methodological guidance to support robust economic evaluations of ICIs in both early and advanced cancer settings.
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.