Cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights
Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles.
15 cost-effectiveness analyses and 10 studies reporting utility weights · 15 sources
Overview
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. |
| Cost-effectiveness analyses | 15 |
| Studies reporting utility weights | 10 |
Cost-effectiveness analyses
Analyses of Tovecimig (CTX-009 and ABL001)
No evidence found.
Treatments for the same indication
Pemigatinib versus mFOLFOX with active symptom control and versus active symptom control alone in relapsed or refractory FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma, England: NICE TA722 committee discussion (2021)
Relevance: Evaluates pemigatinib, an FGFR2 fusion-directed inhibitor listed in section 2, against mFOLFOX with active symptom control and against active symptom control alone in relapsed or refractory FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma in a NICE technology appraisal for England, with FOLFOX the second-line standard of care in section 2.
Biomarker-driven pemigatinib or mFOLFOX versus fluorouracil chemotherapy in previously treated advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Taiwan: Chueh et al. (2023)
Relevance: Evaluates second-line treatment selected by FGFR2 status, pemigatinib or mFOLFOX, against fluorouracil chemotherapy in advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan, a second-line model for the FGFR2 fusion-positive subgroup that section 2 lists.
“This cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the pemigatinib/mFOLFOX regimen as the second-line treatment for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on FGFR2 status in comparison with the regimen of fluorouracil chemotherapy and provided a cost-effectiveness analysis-based reference price for pemigatinib.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A three-state partitioned survival model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who did not respond to first-line therapy.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The willingness-to-pay threshold was three times the gross domestic product per capita in 2021 (NT$2,889,684). A 3% discount rate was applied to quality-adjusted life-years and costs.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The new regimen provided an incremental 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years, with incremental costs of NT$459,697, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of NT$3,411,098 per quality-adjusted life-year and an incremental net monetary benefit of - NT$70,268.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The new regimen was found to be 53.2% cost effective in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In scenario analyses, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive when the price of pemigatinib was reduced by 40% or more.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Pemigatinib versus mFOLFOX and versus fluorouracil in previously treated FGFR2 fusion-positive advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Taiwan: Chen et al. (2023)
Relevance: Evaluates second-line pemigatinib against mFOLFOX and against fluorouracil chemotherapy in FGFR2 fusion-positive advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration, with FOLFOX the second-line standard of care named in section 2.
“This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib 13.5 mg as a second-line treatment compared to mFOLFOX and 5-FU chemotherapy for advanced ICC patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements from the perspective of Taiwan’s NHIA.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“This study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to analyze the 5 year cost-effectiveness of pemigatinib as a second-line treatment for advanced ICC patients in whom first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy failed and to compare the results with those for the mFOLFOX and 5-FU chemotherapy regimens.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“An annual discount of 3% was applied to health outcomes and costs.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Costs listed in 2022 Taiwan dollars” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Pemigatinib was associated with a 0.59 QALY increase with incremental costs of NT$3,428,442 and a 0.68 QALY increase with incremental costs of NT$3,653,100, yielding an ICER of NT$5,814,700 per QALY and an ICER of NT$5,380,241 per QALY compared to mFOLFOX and 5-FU, respectively” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“pemigatinib was more effective but more expensive, resulting in a 6.5% and 4.6% probability of being cost-effective under a WTP threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY gained.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“When the medication cost of pemigatinib was reduced by more than 50%, pemigatinib gained a positive INMB of NT$55,374 and NT$92,437, with a probability of 72.0% and 77.1% of being cost-effective, respectively” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Ivosidenib versus mFOLFOX and versus fluorouracil with leucovorin in previously treated IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Taiwan: Chen et al. (2024a)
Relevance: Evaluates ivosidenib, the IDH1 inhibitor listed in section 2 for a molecular subgroup of second-line biliary tract cancer, against chemotherapy in previously treated advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan.
“we aimed to assess ivosidenib’s cost-effectiveness in previously treated, advanced ICC-presenting IDH1 mutations compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A 3-state partitioned survival model was employed to assess ivosidenib’s cost-effectiveness over a 10-year horizon with a 3% discount rate, setting the willingness-to-pay threshold at 3 times the 2022 GDP per capita.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“All analyses were conducted from the perspective of Taiwan NHIA.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Compared with mFOLFOX, ivosidenib yielded an incremental gain of 0.37 QALY at an incremental cost of NT$2,346,032. This resulted in an ICER of NT$6,268,528 per QALY and an INMB of NT$ − 1,251,116.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In comparison with the 5-FU/LV regimen, ivosidenib provided an incremental benefit of 0.44 QALY, incurring an incremental cost of NT$2,478,942 and resulting in an ICER of NT$5,670,555 per QALY and an associated INMB of NT$ − 1,199,993.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“At NT$10,402/500 mg, ivosidenib was not cost-effective for IDH1 -mutant ICC patients compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV, indicating that a 50–60% price reduction is necessary for ivosidenib to be cost-effective in this patient group.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Pembrolizumab versus tumor-specific standard-of-care chemotherapy in previously treated MSI-H or dMMR cancers including cholangiocarcinoma, United States: Chen et al. (2024b)
Relevance: Evaluates pembrolizumab, a tumor-agnostic therapy for MSI-H disease listed in section 2, against tumor-specific standard-of-care chemotherapy in previously treated MSI-H or dMMR cancers including cholangiocarcinoma from a United States commercial payer perspective.
Access: Free full text
| Tumor type | Treatment | Total costs | Total QALYs | Total LYs | ΔCosts | ΔQALYs | ΔLYs | Incremental cost per QALY gained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Cholangiocarcinoma” | “Pembro” | “$321 470” | “1.49” | “2.15” | “$119 408” | “−0.06” | “−0.06” | “Less effective, more costly” |
| “Cholangiocarcinoma” | “Chemo” | “$202 062” | “1.55” | “2.21” |
Pembrolizumab versus standard of care in previously treated MSI-H/dMMR solid tumours including biliary tract cancer, United Kingdom: McCarthy et al. (2024)
Relevance: Evaluates pembrolizumab, a tumor-agnostic therapy for MSI-H disease listed in section 2, against standard of care in previously treated MSI-H solid tumors including cholangiocarcinoma in the United Kingdom.
Access: Free full text
Not quoted: The text of the full article reports results for the pooled tumour sites and states no result for biliary tract cancer alone.
“This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with standard of care (SoC) for previously treated MSI-H/dMMR solid tumours in line with the approved EMA label from a UK healthcare payer perspective.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A multi-tumour partitioned survival model was built consisting of pre-progression, progressed disease, and dead health states.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Tumour sites were modelled independently and then combined, weighted by tumour site distribution.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Pembrolizumab, at list price, was associated with £129,469 in total costs, 8.30 LYs, and 3.88 QALYs across the pooled tumour sites.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“SoC was associated with £28,222 in total costs, 1.14 LYs, and 0.72 QALYs across the pooled tumour sites. This yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £32,085 per QALY.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
The same disease in other populations or settings
Durvalumab versus pembrolizumab, each with gemcitabine and cisplatin, in first-line advanced biliary tract cancer, United States and China: Zhu et al. (2023)
Relevance: Compares durvalumab and pembrolizumab, each given with gemcitabine and cisplatin, as first-line treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer from United States and Chinese healthcare system perspectives, the first-line therapy that precedes the second-line setting of COMPANION-002.
Access: Free full text
Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin in first-line advanced biliary tract cancer, United States and China: Ye et al. (2023)
Relevance: Evaluates durvalumab added to gemcitabine and cisplatin, the TOPAZ-1 regimen listed in section 2 as first-line treatment, against gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer in the United States and China.
“The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of durvalumab plus chemotherapy compared to placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Based on clinical data from the TOPAZ-1 trial, a Markov model was developed to simulate 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with BTC.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“This research was based on the perspective of Chinese and US payers, applying discount rates of 3% and 5% to costs and utilities, respectively” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“For US payers, we set the willing to pay (WTP) threshold to $150,000/QALY.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“For US payers, the placebo plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $56,157.05 and a utility of 1.10 QALYs, while the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $217,069.25, a utility of 1.52 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $381,864.39/QALY.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“From the perspective of the Chinese payers, compared to the chemotherapy group, the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group incurred an additional cost of $154,904.98, resulting in an ICER of 367,608.51 /QALY” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“For US and Chinese payers, under the respective willing to pay thresholds, the likelihood of the durvalumab plus chemotherapy arm being cost-effective was 0%.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in first-line advanced biliary tract cancer, United States and China: Jiang et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy against placebo plus chemotherapy in first-line advanced biliary tract cancer from United States and Chinese payer perspectives, the first-line setting in which section 2 lists the KEYNOTE-966 regimen.
“This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The models included three health states: PFS, progressive disease (PD) and death” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Each treatment cycle was set at 3 weeks, and a 10-year time horizon with half-cycle correction was applied based on the previous data about BTC.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the gross domestic product per capita, resulting in US$210,746/QALY for the USA and $37,669/QALY for China.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The treatment increased costs by US$97 222.13 in the US and $43 312.02 in China, resulting in ICERs of US$810 184.42 and $360 933.50 per QALY, respectively.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Further analyses suggested that the optimal price of pembrolizumab in the USA would be nearly US$10.33 /mg, while a price reduction of over 90% would be required for the combined therapy to be cost-effective for patients in China.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in first-line advanced biliary tract cancer, United States and China: Zhang et al. (2026)
Relevance: Evaluates pembrolizumab with chemotherapy against chemotherapy alone in advanced biliary tract cancer from United States and Chinese perspectives, the first-line KEYNOTE-966 regimen listed in section 2.
“We constructed a partitioned survival model form the perspectives of US and Chinese payers. KEYNOTE-966 was used to obtain the baseline characteristics of the patients as well as their clinical data.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“There were deaths in more than 98% of patients in both treatment arms with a 10-year time horizon, which means we considered it a lifetime study” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In China, costs (converted to US dollars) and utilities were discounted at 5%, whereas in the United States, both costs and utilities were discounted at 3%” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Based on comparison of the ICER between pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone, the ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was $466,340 per QALY (> WTP of $84,866) and $976,925/QALY (> WTP of $150,000) for the China and the US, respectively.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In addition, we performed an alternative analysis focusing only on PFS. In China and the US, the ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with that of chemotherapy alone was $535,405/QALY and $1,118,607/QALY.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Moreover, for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, the INHB was −0.616 QALYs and the INMB was -$52,237 when the WTP threshold for China was $84,866 per QALY, and for US, the INHB was −0.796 QALYs and the INMB was -$119,400.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin in first-line advanced biliary tract cancer, China, Japan, United States, and Switzerland: Xie et al. (2025)
Relevance: Evaluates first-line pembrolizumab with chemotherapy against chemotherapy alone in advanced biliary tract cancer in the United States, China, Japan, and Switzerland.
“This study employs a partitioned survival analysis model (PartSA) to conduct a cross-country cost-effectiveness evaluation, incorporating treatment cost and utility data from China, Japan, the United States, and Switzerland.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The model employed a 21-day cycle and a time horizon of 10 years, by which point nearly all patients in both groups had transitioned to the death state.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Discount rates for costs and utilities were established at 5% for China ( 17 ), 3% for Japan ( 18 ), 3% for the United States ( 19 ), and 3% for Switzerland” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Compared to chemotherapy alone, the additional costs for combination therapy in China, Japan, the United States, and Switzerland were $74,621.78, $44,014.83, $160,169.86, and $163,631.09, respectively; the QALY gains were 0.14, 0.14, 0.14, and 0.15, respectively. The cost per additional QALY gained was $542,441.16, $314,213.67, $1,104,628.40, and $1,069,496.82, respectively.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“When comparing the ICER values of the four countries with their respective WTP thresholds, the results indicated that the ICER values for combination therapy were significantly higher than the WTP thresholds in all four countries” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In the United States, Japan, and Switzerland, an 80–95% reduction in pembrolizumab’s price was necessary for cost-effectiveness, while in China, a reduction greater than 95% was required.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine monotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer, United States: Roth and Carlson (2012)
Relevance: Evaluates gemcitabine with cisplatin against gemcitabine monotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer in the United States, the chemotherapy backbone of the first-line regimens listed in section 2.
“Based on the ABC-02 findings, this analysis seeks to evaluate the cost-utility of adding cisplatin to standard gemcitabine therapy from a U.S. societal perspective.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate direct medical costs, patient time costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for two treatment strategies: (1) gemcitabine + cisplatin, (2) gemcitabine monotherapy.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Total QALYs for the gemcitabine + cisplatin and gemcitabine monotherapy strategies were 0.751 and 0.561, respectively. Total costs were $44,885 and $33,653 respectively.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Relative to gemcitabine monotherapy, gemcitabine + cisplatin had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $59,480 per QALY gained.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“In the PSA, gemcitabine monotherapy had the highest probability of being cost-effective until a willingness-to-pay of $60,000, after which the gemcitabine + cisplatin strategy had the highest probability.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Related diseases and analogous treatments
Paclitaxel plus ramucirumab, paclitaxel, ramucirumab, docetaxel, irinotecan, and palliative care as second-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, United States: Lam et al. (2017)
Relevance: Compares second-line options for advanced gastric cancer from a United States third-party payer perspective, including paclitaxel plus ramucirumab, an antiangiogenic antibody, against paclitaxel alone, the comparison COMPANION-002 makes with tovecimig.
“Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of six possible second-line treatment options for patients with advanced gastric cancer who have failed previous chemotherapy: irinotecan, docetaxel, paclitaxel, ramucirumab, paclitaxel plus ramucirumab, and palliative care.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The model was performed from a third-party payer's perspective to compare lifetime costs and health benefits associated with studied second-line therapies.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Irinotecan had the lowest lifetime cost and was associated with a QALY gain of 0.35 year. Docetaxel, ramucirumab alone, and palliative care were dominated strategies.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Paclitaxel and the combination of paclitaxel plus ramucirumab led to higher QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $86,815 and $1,056,125 per QALY gained, respectively.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“PSA illustrated that paclitaxel plus ramucirumab was extremely unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold less than $400,000/QALY gained.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Paclitaxel plus ramucirumab versus paclitaxel in advanced gastric cancer progressing after first-line chemotherapy, Japan: Saito et al. (2017)
Relevance: Evaluates ramucirumab, an antiangiogenic antibody, added to paclitaxel against paclitaxel monotherapy in gastric cancer progressing after first-line chemotherapy in Japan, a comparison with the same structure as the COMPANION-002 arms.
“We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel + ramucirumab combination therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer, from the perspective of health care payers in Japan.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“We constructed a Markov model to compare, over a time horizon of 3 years, the costs and effectiveness of the combination of paclitaxel + ramucirumab and paclitaxel alone as second-line therapies for advanced gastric cancer in Japan.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Costs were calculated using year-2016 Japanese yen (¥1 = US $17.79) according to the social insurance reimbursement schedule and drug tariff of the fee-for-service system in Japan.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 2% per year.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Paclitaxel + ramucirumab combination therapy was estimated to provide an additional 0.09 QALYs (0.10 LYs) at a cost of ¥3,870,077, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥43,010,248/QALY.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the combination therapy was >¥12 million/QALY in all of the 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Paclitaxel, ramucirumab plus paclitaxel, pembrolizumab, and biomarker-guided strategies versus best supportive care as second-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, United States: Lauren et al. (2020)
Relevance: Compares pembrolizumab monotherapy, ramucirumab plus paclitaxel, biomarker-guided strategies, paclitaxel monotherapy, and best supportive care as second-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer from a United States payer perspective, with paclitaxel the control arm of COMPANION-002.
“We constructed a Markov decision-analytic model using clinical trial data. Our model compared pembrolizumab monotherapy and ramucirumab/paclitaxel combination therapy for all patients and pembrolizumab for patients based on MSI status or PD-L1 expression. Paclitaxel monotherapy and best supportive care for all patients were additional comparators.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Costs of drugs, treatment administration, follow-up, and management of adverse events were estimated from a US payer perspective.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The model simulated a 60-month treatment and follow-up window, or 5-year time horizon, in monthly cycles.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“All costs and utility scores were discounted by 3% annually” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“ICERs were calculated as the ratio of differences in costs and QALYs between a strategy and the next best alternative. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained was used in the base case as the cutoff for cost effectiveness” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“PAC for all patients was the only cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of $53705/QALY. PEM for MSI-H patients and PAC for MSS patients resulted in an ICER of $325611/QALY, and PEM for MSI-H patients and RAM/PAC for MSS patients resulted in an ICER of $1074620/QALY.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights
Utility weights from analyses of Tovecimig (CTX-009 and ABL001)
No evidence found.
Utility weights for the same indication
Utility weights for progression-free and progressed states, intravenous therapy, and grade 3 or higher adverse events, advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Chueh et al. (2023)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and disease-progressed states of advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in a second-line model, with disutilities for intravenous therapy and for severe adverse events.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access.
Utility weights for progression-free and progressed states, intravenous therapy, and grade 3 or higher adverse events, advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Chen et al. (2023)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and post-progression states of advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated in the second line, with disutilities for intravenous therapy and for severe adverse events.
“As there is currently no evidence of utility or disutility due to adverse events for advanced ICC patients, this study used the same approach as NICE technology appraisal guidance” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Health state utility values for the PF state and PD state were 0.76 and 0.68, respectively, and were assumed to be beta distributions” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Disutility due to adverse events was 0.16” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“disutility in patients who received subcutaneous or intravenous therapies (comparators) was 0.025” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights for progression-free and post-progression states, intravenous therapy, and grade 3 or higher adverse events, IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Chen et al. (2024a)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and post-progression states of previously treated IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, with disutilities for intravenous therapy and for severe adverse events.
“In the absence of published utility and disutility data specific to patients with ICC, this study followed NICE’s technology appraisal guidance (TA722 and TA474)” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“The assigned utility values for each health state in our model were 0.76 for the PF state and 0.68 for the PP state.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“we drew upon disutility values of adverse events from patients with metastatic renal carcinoma, which had been employed in a prior hepatocellular carcinoma study” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“We set the disutility values for adverse events at 0.16 and subcutaneous or intravenous therapies at 0.025.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights for progression-free and progressed cholangiocarcinoma: Chen et al. (2024b)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and progressive disease states of previously treated cholangiocarcinoma from a United States model of pembrolizumab.
Access: Free full text
Utility weights before and after progression, previously treated MSI-H/dMMR cholangiocarcinoma: McCarthy et al. (2024)
Relevance: Utilities before and after progression in previously treated cholangiocarcinoma from a United Kingdom model of pembrolizumab.
Access: Free full text
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in Table 1 of the full text, which the publisher’s page displays only on request, so this page does not quote them.
Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings
Utility weights for progression-free and progressed states and grade 3 or higher adverse events, advanced biliary tract cancer: Zhu et al. (2023)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and progressed states of advanced biliary tract cancer and a disutility for severe adverse events, from a model of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
Access: Free full text
Utility weights for progression-free and progressed states and disutilities for hematologic adverse events, advanced biliary tract cancer: Ye et al. (2023)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and progressed states of advanced biliary tract cancer and disutilities for leukopenia, anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, from a model of durvalumab with chemotherapy.
“We were unable to obtain specific utility values for the patients with PFS and PD status. We used data from previously published studies as the health utility of BTCs patients in PFS and PD states (0.76 for PFS and 0.68 for PD)” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights for progression-free and progressed states, advanced biliary tract cancer, United States and China: Jiang et al. (2025)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and progressive disease states of advanced biliary tract cancer applied to the United States and China.
“Health utility values, although measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-Item Core Quality of Life Questionnaire in the original study, were not disclosed. Therefore, published data were used to assign a utility score of 0.76 for PFS, 0.68 for PD and 0 for death” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights for progression-free and progressed states by country, advanced biliary tract cancer: Xie et al. (2025)
Relevance: Country-specific utilities for the progression-free and progressed states of advanced biliary tract cancer for the United States, China, Japan, and Switzerland.
“utility values for different health states and disutility values for AEs, were obtained from published literature.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights before and after progression and with an adverse event, advanced biliary tract cancer: Roth and Carlson (2012)
Relevance: Utilities for advanced biliary tract cancer before and after progression and with an adverse event, from a United States model of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access.
“One-way sensitivity analyses found results to be sensitive to progression-free survival, overall survival, pre and post-progression health state utility values, and the cost of post-progression care.” (opens the original PubMed page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
Search strategy
| Dataset | Query | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Methods | tovecimig OR "CTX-009" OR ABL001 | 0 |
| Ratios | cholangiocarcinoma OR "biliary tract" OR "bile duct" OR "gallbladder" | 119 |
| Ratios | futibatinib OR pemigatinib OR infigratinib OR erdafitinib | 5 |
| Ratios | ivosidenib OR zanidatamab OR "liposomal irinotecan" | 4 |
| Methods | cholangiocarcinoma OR "biliary tract cancer" OR "biliary cancer" OR "gallbladder cancer" | 30 |
| Methods | "fibroblast growth factor receptor" OR FGFR | 2 |
| Methods | ramucirumab AND paclitaxel | 6 |
| Methods | FOLFOX AND (cholangiocarcinoma OR biliary) | 2 |
| Methods | "active symptom control" OR "best supportive care" AND biliary | 1 |
| Methods | ramucirumab | 13 |
| Methods | bevacizumab AND paclitaxel | 18 |
| Weights | cholangiocarcinoma OR "biliary tract" OR "biliary cancer" OR "gallbladder cancer" | 123 |
| Methods | paclitaxel AND (biliary OR cholangiocarcinoma) | 0 |
| Methods | "DLL4" OR "delta-like ligand 4" OR "bispecific antibody" | 10 |