ArticlePloS one2026
Economic evaluation of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of dual-agent group (finotonlimab combined with a bevacizumab biosimilar) (SCT510) versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
methodsBased on the results of a Phase III clinical trial, a three-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The primary outcomes of the model included total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost-effectiveness analysis was employed to evaluate the economic efficiency of the dual-agent group compared to the sorafenib group as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The model cycle length was set at 3 weeks, with a time horizon of 10 years and a discount rate of 4.5%. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times China's 2025 per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (299,400 CNY). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.
resultsThe ICER for the dual-agent group compared to the sorafenib group, calculated based on QALYs, was 859,053.76 CNY/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold (299,400 CNY). One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that parameters such as utility value in the PD state, utility value in the PFS state, the cost of finotonlimab and bevacizumab biosimilar had a significant impact on the ICER, while other parameters had minimal influence. The base-case analysis results were robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP threshold of 299,400 CNY, the probability of the dual-agent group being cost-effective was 0%. When the WTP threshold was approximately 842,000 CNY, the two groups had equal probability of being cost-effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base-case analysis.
conclusionFrom the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, finotonlimab combined with a bevacizumab biosimilar is not cost-effective as first-line treatment for advanced HCC.
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.