ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Economic value of finotonlimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in China and the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Exploring the optimal regimen in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a protocol of individual patient data network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in immunology · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The APOLLO trial demonstrated that anlotinib plus penpulimab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this regimen from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. We constructed a partitioned survival model comprising three health states to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib plus penpulimab versus sorafenib for unresectable HCC. Over a 10-y time horizon, we compared the total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between two groups. The robustness of the results was validated through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Compared to sorafenib, anlotinib plus penpulimab provided an additional 0.21 QALYs at an incremental cost of $18,194.86. This resulted in an ICER of $86,546.80/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the utility value for PFS exerted the greatest influence on the model results, followed by penpulimab prices and the disutility due to adverse events (grade ≥3) in the anlotinib plus penpulimab group. PSA indicated a 0% probability of the anlotinib plus penpulimab regimen being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $40,335/QALY. Scenario analysis results showed that the Patient Assistance Program of penpulimab could help the regimen achieve favorable cost-effectiveness. Compared with sorafenib, anlotinib plus penpulimab for unresectable HCC patients was unlikely cost-effective under the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.
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.