scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258605
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Chongqing Tan ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
The Cost

Background The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. Methods A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. Results Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youwen Zhu ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Shuosha Li ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Background：The phase III clinical trial Keynote-604 indicated that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers’ perspective.Methods: A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years (LYs), quality adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In addition, We also considered subgroup cost-effectiveness.Results: Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs (0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of pembrolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed there was 0% probability that pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of $150,000 per QALY in the US. The results of subgroup probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective.Conclusion: From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option as first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Xia Luo ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background: The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer(ES-SCLC). Intergrated the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost into account, this study aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compared the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examined the robustness of our model. Results: Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP, resulted in better effectiveness than the use of EP alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerts no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide rang of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion: From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compare with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary measure to improve its cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for previously untreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the USA

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e031019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Ye Peng ◽  
Fang Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesEvaluating the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus standard chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective.DesignA Markov model was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Health outcomes were estimated in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost information was from Medicare in 2018. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the impact of uncertainty and assumptions on the results.SettingThe US payer perspective.ParticipantsA hypothetical US cohort of patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations.InterventionsPembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy.Primary outcome measuresCosts, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy expressed as cost per QALY gained compared with chemotherapyResultsThe base case analysis demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.78 QALYs at incremental cost of $151 409, resulting in an ICER of $194 372/QALY. ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was >$149 680/QALY in all of our univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPembrolizumab in addition to chemotherapy provides modest incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY for the treatment of previously untreated metastatic NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibition in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20504-e20504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
Longjiang She ◽  
Linli Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S

e20504 Background: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation have improved survival with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatments, but the economic efficiency of this application is unclear, especially in limited health resource settings. To inform policy makers about the value of these medications, we developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy, gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib and osimertinib treatments from a public payers’ perspective in the U.S and China. Health states consisted of progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Model transition, adverse event probabilities, disease progression, and death were obtained from randomized clinical trials and network meta-analysis. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 10-year lifetime horizon were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by multiple potentially modifiable parameters. Results: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors were more cost-effective than chemotherapy treatment in both the U.S and China. In the U.S, compared with erlotinib, afatinib had an ICER of $241,420/QALY while osimertinib had an ICER of $351,315/QALY. In China, the incremental utility for osimertinib versus gefitinib was 0.68QALYs, and the ICER was $25,622/QALY. The probability sensitivity analyses also illustrated that the erlotinib was the optimal treatment at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in the U.S and osimertinib was the most cost-effective treatment at a WTP of $26,508/QALY in China. Conclusions: Based on our current analysis, erlotinib appears to be the preferred first-line treatment for advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients in the US at a WTP of $150,000/QALY. However, because of the price reduction and more health benefits, osimertinib was considered to be most cost-effective at a WTP of $26,508/QALY in China.

scholarly journals Adding Enzalutamide to First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng-Fei Zhang ◽  
Dan Xie ◽  
Qiu Li
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hormone Sensitive ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic profile of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) from the US and Chinese payers' perspectives.Materials and Methods: A Markov model with three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, was constructed. All patients were assumed to enter the model in the PFS state and transit according to the transition structure. Efficacy data were derived from the ENZAMET trial and Weibull distribution curves were modeled to fit the survival curves. Costs in the model included cost of drugs, best-supportive care (BSC), follow-up, tests, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatments. The primary endpoint of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the impact of several key parameters on the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Overall, ICERs were $430,933.95/QALY and $225,444.74/QALY of addition of enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) vs. ADT from the US and Chinese payers' perspective, respectively. The most influential factors were the utility for the PFS state and the cost of enzalutamide. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000.00/QALY in the US and $28,988.40/QALY in China, the probability of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment being a cost-effective option for mHSPC was 0%.Conclusions: Based on the data from the ENZAMET trial and the current price of enzalutamide, adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with mHSPC from the US and Chinse payers' perspectives.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marscha S. Holleman ◽  
Maiwenn J. Al ◽  
Remziye Zaim ◽  
Harry J. M. Groen ◽  
Carin A. Uyl-de Groot
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Egfr Mutations ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objectives To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. Conclusions Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective.

scholarly journals First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide Versus Platinum-Etoposide for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Longfeng Zhang ◽  
Yongfu Hang ◽  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Hongfu Cai
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide as first-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the US payer.MethodsThis study established a partition survival model for three health states, metastasis probability, and safety data based on the CASPIAN clinical trial. The health utility value was mainly derived from the published literature. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsDurvalumab plus platinum–etoposide increased QALY by 0.220 compared to that observed with platinum–etoposide only. The cost increased by $78,198.75 and the incremental cost per QALY increased by $355,448.86. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses indicated that the model parameters varied within a limited range and had no significant effect on the results.ConclusionsAlthough durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide can improve quality of life, it also substantially increases the cost of medical treatment. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, durvalumab does not have a cost-effective comparative advantage.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding ramucirumab to the first-line erlotinib treatment for untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in China

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040691
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Xia Luo ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Egfr Mutated

ObjectiveTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib compared with placebo plus erlotinib in the first-line setting for patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.DesignA Markov model consisting of three health states using clinical survival data from the RELAY phase III randomised clinical trial, a lifetime horizon for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab plus erlotinib. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Additional price reduction scenario analyses were performed.SettingThe Chinese healthcare system perspective.ParticipantsA hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with confirmed previously documented ex19del or Leu858Arg mutation stage IV NSCLC, and without known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Thr790Met mutation and central nervous system metastases.InterventionsRamucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib.Primary outcome measureCosts, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn base-case analysis, ramucirumab plus erlotinib yield an additional 4.21 QALYs at a cost of $540 590, resulting in an ICER of $128 302/QALY. In price reduction scenario analysis, the ICER ($65 227/QALY) was decreased significantly when the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) negotiation was available for ramucirumab, and the ICER ($131 554/QALY) was increased slightly when the NRDL negotiation was unavailable for erlotinib. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated our results to be most sensitive to the unit cost of ramucirumab (10 mg/kg), and more than 52.1% reduction in the price of ramucirumab resulted in the ICER under the willingness-to-pay threshold set for affluent regions ($70 353/QALY).ConclusionsRamucirumab plus erlotinib is unlikely to be cost-effective for patients with untreated EGFR-mutated mNSCLC in China. Reducing the price of ramucirumab through the National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation was found to be the most realistic action to improve cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non–small-cell Lung Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuezhi Hao ◽  
Aizong Shen ◽  
Bin Wu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. Decisions have to be made about allocating healthcare resources. Economic evidence could support policy decisions to fund expensive interventions. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations. It is set in the context of the US and China, representing developed and resource-constrained settings, respectively.Patients and Methods: A Markov model consisting of three discrete health states was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate-227 trial, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) were calculated for the two strategies. Subgroup, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: In the United States, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased by 1.260 QALYs with an additional cost of $95,617 compared with the features of chemotherapy, which led to an ICER of $75,871 per QALY gained. INHB indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment had a 99% probability of being cost-effective at the ICER threshold of $100,000/QALY in all subgroups. The results of sensitivity analyses revealed that the model outcomes were robust. In China, the ICER of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy was $59,773/QALY, and the INHB was -1.972 QALY at the threshold of $27,351/QALY.Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment is a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations in the United States. However, nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not a preferred option in China.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 295-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenjun Wang ◽  
Jingjing Wang ◽  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Yikai Wang ◽  
Juanjuan Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
First Line Treatment

295 Background: In May 2020, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was approved by US Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have not received prior systemic therapy due to improvement in overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed to compare health care costs and clinical outcomes of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic HCC over 6-year horizon. Treatment effects were extracted from the IMbrave150 trial. Health care cost and health utility data were obtained from published studies and databases. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the ratio of the incremental cost to the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab resulted in increase of 0.623 life-years, 0.484 QALYs and $158,781 per patient at the base case analysis. The ICER was $322,500 per QALY (95% confidence interval, $136,275 to $801,509 per QALY), with 0.5% and 4.1% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never went below $150,000 per QALY in the one-way sensitivity analyses and among patients of clinically relevant subgroups in the subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC from the US payer perspective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document