Cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as the second-line treatment for advanced endometrial carcinoma.
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)
유사 논문P · 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.
[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
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 한글 요약
[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.
[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
- Reforming the delivery of smoking cessation: a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of providing smoking cessation as part of targeted lung cancer screening.
- Real-world data on anti-PD-1 plus lenvatinib as a treatment option in pretreated advanced melanoma patients - a retrospective DeCOG study.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ritlecitinib Compared With No Treatment in Patients With Severe Alopecia Areata in Japan.
- Clinical Course and Risk Factors of Lenvatinib-Related Hypothyroidism in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
- Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Lenvatinib: a retrospective multicenter study.
- Advantage of Scheduled Upfront Lenvatinib Administration Followed by Transarterial Chemoembolization Therapy Over Lenvatinib Monotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study.