ArticleBMJ open2026
Cost-effectiveness of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectiveSugemalimab plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, considering the high cost of sugemalimab, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for advanced ESCC.
designA partitioned survival model with a 3-week cycle length and the lifetime time horizon was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ESCC. The key survival data, drug costs, and utility values were obtained from the GEMSTONE-304 trial, YAOZHI database and the published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty and model stability. In addition, subgroup and scenario analyses were conducted.
settingThe Chinese healthcare system perspective.
participantsA hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic ESCC.
interventionsSugemalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs, QALYs, ICERs.
resultsCompared with the placebo plus chemotherapy, the sugemalimab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.36 QALYs, with an incremental cost of $44 376.88. The result of ICER was $119 400.69/QALY, which was significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product ($38 024.68/QALY) in 2023. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of sugemalimab, the discount rate and the utility values were the most influential parameters on the base-case analysis results. Subgroup analyses showed that programmed cell death - ligand 1 subgroup ICERs exhibited dose-dependent efficacy: the ICERs for sugemalimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy were $138 739.23/QALY and $108 051.81/QALY in advanced ESCC patients with 1 ≤ combined positive score (CPS) <10 and CPS ≥10. Scenario analysis indicated that even with patient assistance programme, the total cost of the sugemalimab plus chemotherapy group ($23 474.25) would be $15 030.18 higher than that of the placebo plus chemotherapy group ($8444.07), which had an ICER of $40 440.28/QALY. When the price of sugemalimab decreased by 50% and 85%, the probabilities of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective were 0% and 100%, respectively.
conclusionFrom a Chinese healthcare system perspective, sugemalimab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ESCC might not be a cost-effective treatment option at the WTP threshold of $38 024.68/QALY.
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.