ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026
Cost‑effectiveness of first‑line immunotherapy-based combination regimens for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China and the United States.
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
Immunotherapy‑based combination regimens provide significant clinical benefits but impose substantial economic burdens on national healthcare systems. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy‑based combination regimens as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in China and the United States (US). A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all approved regimens with a lifetime horizon. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty. Compared to the sunitinib regimen, the ICERs for the toripalimab plus axitinib (T + A), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I), lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P), pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N + C), avelumab plus axitinib (A + A) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) regimens in China were $64,536.98/QALY, $135,593.25/QALY, $174,956.58/QALY, $231,908.95/QALY, $728,876.75/QALY, $1,232,070.43/QALY, and $2,496,799.42/QALY, respectively. The ICERs for the N + I, T + A, N + C, P + A, L + P, A + A, and A + B regimens in the US were $160,243.50/QALY, $468,156.65/QALY, $804,963.69/QALY, $907,549.79/QALY, $2,170,769.66/QALY, $2,623,809.39/QALY, and $12,712,147.95/QALY, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that the probability of cost-effectiveness corresponding to N + I vs. sunitinib was 33.6% in the US. In China and the US, none of the seven first-line immunotherapy-based combination regimens was cost-effective compared with sunitinib for aRCC.
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.