Loading
Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments / Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment · Journal article
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · August 18, 2026
Encouraging direction, but not yet definitive.
This is a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from a Chinese healthcare perspective showing that disitamab vedotin plus toripalimab costs $18,448.74 per QALY versus chemotherapy, falling below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $40,334 per QALY. However, a scenario analysis excluding subsequent therapy costs reversed this conclusion (ICER $66,303.62 per QALY), indicating the economic advantage is sensitive to assumptions about treatment duration and follow-on therapies.
Cost-effectiveness analysis using partitioned survival model. Patients with HER2-expressing advanced urothelial cancer treated as first-line; analysis conducted from Chinese healthcare system perspective.. Intervention: Disitamab vedotin plus toripalimab (DV+Torip). Compared with: Chemotherapy. China.
ICER of DV+Torip vs. chemotherapy estimated at $18,448.74 per QALY, below WTP threshold of $40,334 per QALY Majority of sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses maintained ICER below WTP threshold One scenario analysis (excluding subsequent drug treatment costs) yielded ICER of $66,303.62 per QALY, nullifying economic advantage
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
Cost-effectiveness findings support DV+Torip regimen under base-case Chinese pricing and treatment duration assumptions. However, clinicians and payers should note that this conclusion is contingent on realistic estimates of subsequent therapy costs and actual treatment durations; deviations from these assumptions may reverse the economic case.
A modeled cost-effectiveness analysis from a single healthcare system showing the intervention meets the threshold, but dependent on assumptions about treatment duration and subsequent costs that proved sensitive in scenario testing.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
Cost-effectiveness findings support DV+Torip regimen under base-case Chinese pricing and treatment duration assumptions. However, clinicians and payers should note that this conclusion is contingent on realistic estimates of subsequent therapy costs and actual treatment durations; deviations from these assumptions may reverse the economic case.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
The RC48-C016 trial conducted in China demonstrated that disitamab vedotin plus toripalimab (DV+Torip) significantly extended overall survival and progression-free survival in comparison to chemotherapy for patients with HER2-expressing advanced urothelial cancer. However, the economic value of this combination regimen remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of DV+Torip vs. chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for HER2-expressing advanced urothelial cancer from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. A partitioned survival model with a 10 y time horizon was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. The primary outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were employed to examine the uncertainty associated with the model results. The ICER of DV+Torip vs. chemotherapy was estimated at $18,448.74 per QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $40,334 per QALY. In the majority of sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses, the ICER values remained below the WTP threshold, thereby affirming the robustness of these findings. However, in one scenario analysis, where treatment durations were not aligned with the median treatment cycles and subsequent drug treatment costs were excluded, the economic advantage of the DV+Torip group was nullified, resulting in an ICER of $66,303.62 per QALY. These results suggest that DV+Torip is cost-effective, though its economic advantage may be influenced by treatment duration and subsequent therapy costs.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.