본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as the second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma.

1/5 보강
Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E 2026 Vol.24(1) OA
Retraction 확인
출처

PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)

유사 논문
P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
환자: aEC over 20 years
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
[CONCLUSIONS] LP is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for aEC unless its price is reduced by more than 20%. [SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION] The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-025-00711-y.

Chiang ST, Chueh CH, Wen YW, Chiang SC, Li WH, Tsai YW

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[BACKGROUND] The combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (LP) for advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma has demonstrated improved survival in a clinical study and has been endorsed by the Eu

이 논문을 인용하기

↓ .bib ↓ .ris
APA Chiang ST, Chueh CH, et al. (2026). Cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as the second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma.. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-025-00711-y
MLA Chiang ST, et al.. "Cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as the second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma.." Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, vol. 24, no. 1, 2026.
PMID 41535916 ↗

Abstract

[BACKGROUND] The combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (LP) for advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma has demonstrated improved survival in a clinical study and has been endorsed by the European Society for Medical Oncology. However, the LP regimen is currently not covered by Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LP as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma (aEC) under Taiwan’s NHI.

[METHODS] A 3-state partitioned survival model was used to analyze a hypothetical population of patients with aEC over 20 years. The overall and progression-free survival curves were obtained from the updated results of the Phase III trial 309/KEYNOTE-775 and extrapolated using a hybrid method. The pricing of the LP was based on the NHI fee schedule for other cancer treatments. Health state utilities and disutilities related to adverse events were obtained from the published literature. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was three times the GDP per capita in 2022 (NT$2,917,650). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were discounted at 3%. Scenario analyses included LP price reductions and time horizon adjustments. Deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and value of information analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty.

[RESULTS] LP provided an incremental gain of 0.92 QALYs at an incremental cost of NT$2,929,046, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of NT$3,197,177, which exceeded the WTP threshold. The major factors causing uncertainty were the time horizon and cost of the LP.

[CONCLUSIONS] LP is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for aEC unless its price is reduced by more than 20%.

[SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION] The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-025-00711-y.

🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (1)

🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반

🟢 PMC 전문 열기