Table 1 Key clinical and health preference data
Parameters | Values | Reference |
|---|---|---|
Log-logistic survival model of PFS of sunitinib | Scale = 0.01302; Shape = 1.174; r2 = 0.9997 | [12] |
Log-logistic survival model of PFS of nivolumab plus ipilimumab | Scale = 0.02487; Shape = 0.9312; r2 = 0.9995 | [12] |
Weibull survival model of OS of sunitinib arm | Scale = 0.00685; Shape = 0.9778; r2 = 0.9939 | [12] |
Weibull survival model of OS of nivolumab plus ipilimumab | Scale = 0.00414; Shape = 0.9938; r2 = 0.9993 | [12] |
Probability (%) of total AEs (grade 1 and 2) | ||
 Sunitinib | 34 (Range:26–43) | [12] |
 Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab | 47 (Range:59–12) | [12] |
Probability (%) of total AEs (grade ≥ 3) | ||
 Sunitinib | 63 (Range:47–79) | [12] |
 Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab | 46 (Range:35–58) | [12] |
Probability (%) of fatigue (grade ≥ 3) | ||
 Sunitinib | 9.2 (Range:6.9–11.4) | [12] |
 Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab | 4.2 (Range:3.2–5.3) | [12] |
Probability (%) of hypertension (grade ≥ 3) | ||
 Sunitinib | 15.9 (Range:11.9–19.9) | [12] |
 Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab | 0.7 (Range:0.5–0.9) | [12] |
Probability (%) of anemia (grade ≥ 3) | ||
 Sunitinib | 4.5 (Range:3.4–5.6) | [12] |
 Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab | 0.4 (Range:0.3–0.5) | [12] |
Probability (%) of palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (grade ≥ 3) | ||
 Sunitinib | 9.2 (Range:6.9–11.4) | [12] |
 Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab | 0 (Range:0–0) | [12] |
Probability (%) of thrombocytopenia (grade ≥ 3) | ||
 Sunitinib | 4.7 (Range:3.5–5.8) | [12] |
 Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab | 0 (Range:0–0) | [12] |
Proportion (%) of receiving active second-line treatment | Â | |
 US | 66 (Range:7.5–80) |  |
 UK | 15.8 (Range:7.5–80) |  |
 China | 33 (Range:7.5–80) |  |
Health preferences | ||
 Utility of PFS | 0.78 (Range:0.71–0.849) | |
 Utility of PD | 0.66 (Range:0.45–0.823) | |
 Disutility due to AEs (grade 1 and 2) | 0.014 (Range:0.008–0.02) | [41] |
 Disutility due to AEs (grade ≥ 3) | 0.157 (Range:0.11–0.204) | [41] |