ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026
Cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) imposes a substantial health burden in China. Finotonlimab plus bevacizumab recently prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs. sorafenib, but its economic value remains unknown. Here we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Parametric survival models were fitted to extrapolate PFS and OS. Total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net health benefit (INHB) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $27,906 per QALY. Uncertainty was evaluated by one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), subgroup analyses, scenario analyses, and price simulations. In the base-case analysis, sorafenib yielded 1.74 LYs and 1.25 QALYs at a total cost of $10,303.10, whereas finotonlimab plus bevacizumab yielded 3.01 LYs and 2.18 QALYs at a total cost of $58,595.49. Compared with sorafenib, the combination increased costs by $48,292.39 and generated gains of 1.27 LYs and 0.93 QALYs, resulting in ICERs of $38,203.46 per LY and $51,899.31 per QALY. INMB (-$22,325.82) and INHB (-0.80 QALYs) were negative. Sensitivity analyses identified PFS utility and bevacizumab cost as key drivers, but all ICERs remained above the WTP threshold. In PSA, the mean ICER was $50561.81 per QALY, and the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0% at the prespecified threshold. Based on the assumptions and inputs used in the present model, finotonlimab plus bevacizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with sorafenib at the prespecified WTP 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.