ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
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.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04344158 (A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label, Multicenter Phase III Clinical Trial of AK105 Injection Combined With Anlotinib Hydrochloride Capsules Versus Sorafenib in Subjects With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma), which is not on this 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.
A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label, Multicenter Phase III Clinical Trial of AK105 Injection Combined With Anlotinib Hydrochloride Capsules Versus Sorafenib in Subjects With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)
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
Background: In the phase III clinical trial named APOLLO (NCT04344158), anlotinib plus penpulimab significantly improved PFS and OS compared with sorafenib in the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). Although targeted agents combined with immunotherapy offer a new treatment option for uHCC and provide significant benefits, their cost-effectiveness in China remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib plus penpulimab for uHCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, in accordance with the latest Methods: A partitioned survival model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib plus penpulimab over sorafenib monotherapy as a first-line treatment therapy for uHCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. The time horizon was the patient's lifetime, with a cycle of 21 days. Clinical information was derived from the APOLLO trial, cost and health state utility data were derived from local databases and published literature. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were used as the model's main outcome indicator, sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: In the base-case analysis, anlotinib plus penpulimab provided an additional 0.58 QALYs at an incremental total cost of United States dollar ($)24,637.23, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $ 42,319.31/QALY, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $ 27,766.48/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the model were most sensitive to the utility value of the PD state and the price of penpulimab. Sensitivity analyzes indicated that our results were robust to the variation ranges of key inputs. Scenario analysis confirmed that when the prices of penpulimab was reduced by 50%, the cost-effectiveness of the anlotinib plus penpulimab is significantly improved. Conclusion: In this economic evaluation comparing two first-line treatments for patients with uHCC, anlotinib plus penpulimab was not more cost-effective than sorafenib from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. However, this outcome could be altered if penpulimab undergoes a substantial price reduction.
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.