MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115022452 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2025.1304

Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab (Opdivo Plus Yervoy)

2025· article· W7115022452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurvalumabNivolumabIpilimumabSorafenibLenvatinibImmunotherapyClinical trialSunitinib

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) recommends that Opdivo plus Yervoy be reimbursed by public drug plans for the first-line treatment of adult patients with unresectable or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) if certain conditions are met. The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Expert Review Committee (pERC) determined that Opdivo plus Yervoy demonstrates acceptable clinical value versus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (sorafenib and lenvatinib), and immunotherapies (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and durvalumab plus tremelimumab) in adults with HCC at an advanced stage when it can no longer be surgically removed (unresectable or advanced). This determination was enough for pERC to recommend that Opdivo plus Yervoy be reimbursed. Given that Opdivo plus Yervoy is expected to be an alternative to TKIs or currently available immunotherapies, acceptable clinical value refers to at least comparable value versus TKIs and immunotherapies. Evidence from a clinical trial (CheckMate 9DW) showed that treatment with Opdivo plus Yervoy likely results in patients living longer (improved overall survival [OS]) compared with sorafenib and lenvatinib at 24 months in patients with unresectable or advanced HCC. Evidence from an indirect treatment comparison suggested better OS with Opdivo plus Yervoy compared to other immunotherapies (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and durvalumab plus tremelimumab) after 6 months in adults with unresectable or advanced HCC. Opdivo plus Yervoy was considered an alternative immunotherapy option that may offer a clinical benefit for some patients beyond 6 months of treatment. A key limitation of the evidence is the absence of information identifying which patients are at a higher risk of death in the first 6 months of treatment. Opdivo plus Yervoy should only be covered for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable or advanced HCC who have Child-Pugh score class A and good performance status. Opdivo plus Yervoy should not be covered if the patient has been previously treated for unresectable or advanced HCC. Opdivo plus Yervoy should be prescribed by and managed under the care of clinicians with expertise in managing unresectable or advanced HCC. Reimbursement should be for a maximum of 2 years of treatment. Reimbursement should be discontinued if the cancer becomes worse or there are unacceptable side effects. The total treatment cost of Opdivo plus Yervoy should not exceed that of treatment with the least costly immunotherapy comparator. Important economic feasibility must be addressed for health systems to be able to adopt Opdivo plus Yervoy due to the magnitude of uncertainty in the budget impact.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207