ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2026
Cadonilimab plus chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in China and the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Camrelizumab plus CAPOX versus CAPOX for HER2-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COMPASSION-15 trial showed that cadonilimab plus chemotherapy has significant clinical advantages in patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma compared to chemotherapy. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness for patients in China and the United States. Objective: To provide advice for patients on the use of cadonilimab. Design: The cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A partitioned survival model was conducted from perspective of the Chinese and U.S. healthcare systems over a lifetime horizon. Key parameters of the model were derived from COMPASSION-15 trial and published literature. In this study, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were taken as main outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, price simulations, and programmed death ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) subgroup analyses were conducted to test robustness. Results: In base-case analysis, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group achieved an ICER of US dollars (USD) 32,630.84/QALY in China and USD 109,996.43/QALY in the United States, falling within the established willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds in both cases. At the current negotiated Chinese price (USD 208.94/100 mg), cadonilimab was cost-effective; in the United States, it remained cost-effective when priced below USD 437.87 (USD 100,000/QALY threshold) or USD 870.23 (USD 150,000/QALY threshold) per 100 mg. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients with PD-L1 CPS ⩾5 had 100% (China) and >94% (U.S.) probability of cost-effectiveness, whereas those with CPS <5 had reduced economic favorability. Sensitivity analyses identified progression-free survival utility, drug price, and body weight as key drivers of ICERs. Conclusion: As a first-line strategy for patients with HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, cadonilimab combined with chemotherapy represents a cost-effective option in both China and the United States. Its economic advantage is most pronounced in patients with high PD-L1 expression and at lower drug prices. These findings provide quantitative evidence supporting reimbursement negotiations and future pricing strategies for cadonilimab in global markets.
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.