.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Tivozanib versus Sorafenib as Subsequent-Line Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a US Healthcare Perspective
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
X
R
Y
J
M
J
H
X
Z
H
H
DOI：10.2147/rmhp.s617441.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
The incidence of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) continues to rise in the United States. While first-line combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have improved outcomes, most patients eventually require subsequent-line therapy. The Phase III TIVO-3 trial demonstrated that tivozanib significantly prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in relapsed or refractory aRCC, though without overall survival advantage. However, its economic value remains unestablished. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tivozanib versus sorafenib from a US healthcare perspective.
Keywords:
cost-effectiveness
tivozanib
sorafenib
partitioned survival model
advanced renal cell carcinoma
Journal
IF:
2
Papers:
269
Citations:
4.1K
Organization
Cited Papers