ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab as first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of healthcare payers in China. Methods: An economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab. The Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from two clinical trials were digitally extracted, and the Weibull models were applied at the end of the trials to extrapolate long-term survival. The cost and health utility data were sourced from the published literature. Results: The anticipated cost for Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab exceeded that for Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab (109,555.94 USD vs. 15,264.92 USD). The estimated utility for Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab was decreased compared to that of Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab (1.47 QALYs vs. 1.59 QALYs). The ICER was -742,858.34 USD/QALY, suggesting the Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab treatment was cost-effective compared to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic HCC patients. Conclusion: Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab was cost-effective compared to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic HCC patients in China.
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.