Immunotherapy · 2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) in China.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhu Xiaohong, Yang Xu, Liu Tong
Аннотация
AIMS: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) in China.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An economic evaluation using a three-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Nivolumab monotherapy. The Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival from a clinical trial were digitally extracted, and the Weibull model was applied to extrapolate long-term survival.
RESULTS: The anticipated cost and utility of the Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab arm exceeded those of the Nivolumab monotherapy arm, respectively (322,575.67 USD vs. 188,409.23 USD; 3.88 QALYs vs. 2.57 QALYs). The ICER was 102,646.86 USD/QALY, suggesting that Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab was not cost-effective compared to Nivolumab monotherapy as the late-line treatment for metastatic CRC patients with dMMR/MSI-H.
CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab was not cost-effective compared to Nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated metastatic CRC patients with dMMR/MSI-H in China.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An economic evaluation using a three-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Nivolumab monotherapy. The Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival from a clinical trial were digitally extracted, and the Weibull model was applied to extrapolate long-term survival.
RESULTS: The anticipated cost and utility of the Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab arm exceeded those of the Nivolumab monotherapy arm, respectively (322,575.67 USD vs. 188,409.23 USD; 3.88 QALYs vs. 2.57 QALYs). The ICER was 102,646.86 USD/QALY, suggesting that Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab was not cost-effective compared to Nivolumab monotherapy as the late-line treatment for metastatic CRC patients with dMMR/MSI-H.
CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab was not cost-effective compared to Nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated metastatic CRC patients with dMMR/MSI-H in China.