ArticleBMJ open2024
Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib compared sorafenib as first-line therapeutic options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management and outcomes of patients with liver cancer in China and the United States.Chinese medical journal · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab and bevacizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Unravelling T cell exhaustion through co-inhibitory receptors and its transformative role in cancer immunotherapy.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Economic evaluation of anlotinib plus penpulimab vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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
aimThe objective of this research is to assess the cost-effectiveness of combining camrelizumab with rivoceranib in comparison to sorafenib as first-line therapeutic options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the Chinese medical system perspective.
methodsA partitioned survival model was employed to perform a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis. This analysis incorporated multiple factors, such as treatment effectiveness, adverse events and costs, all of which were derived from data obtained from the CARES-310 trial. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness and reliability of the model.
resultsThe comparison between the two groups demonstrated that the cohort receiving camrelizumab combined with rivoceranib exhibited a significant increase of 0.803 quality-adjusted life year (QALY), alongside an additional expenditure of US$7345.051. This computation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$9147.012 per QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$39 855.785 per QALY in China. Sensitivity analyses conducted in this study further demonstrated the robustness of the results across various assumptions.
conclusionThe adoption of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib as a treatment option is not only associated with improved health outcomes but also represents a cost-effective choice in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.