Ormeval provides decision-support intelligence derived from public sources. It is not investment, medical, legal or regulatory advice, and states nothing about the value of any security. Forward figures are deterministic model estimates, not guidance.
Keytruda (pembrolizumab) · anti-PD-1 · Merck & Co.
The only live head-to-head against the PACIFIC standard of care, a pre-approval scenario in which pembrolizumab, if KEYLYNK-012 wins, contests durvalumab's Stage III consolidation franchise on a compressed, biosimilar-shadowed branded window.
This page covers ONLY the KEYLYNK-012 challenger scenario in unresectable Stage III NSCLC post-CRT, distinct from Keytruda's metastatic 1L, perioperative and adjuvant NSCLC indications, and pre-approval throughout. See all Keytruda indications →
NCT04380636; dual primary PFS+OS vs PACIFIC standard; AstraZeneca/Lynparza.
All markets
Peak net revenue ~2030 · modelled scenario
$439M
CONCLUDED · 2030 modelled net revenue - indication slice, all markets; Merck & Co. reports no indication revenue. Modelled scenario · assumes approval · not guidance
No model change since the 20 Sep 2026 snapshot.
The 15-second read
Read the graveyard before reading the forecast. Three separate attempts to beat or improve on durvalumab consolidation with concurrent chemoradiation immunotherapy have already failed in this exact setting, SKYSCRAPER-03 and PACIFIC-2 on PFS, EA5181 on OS, and KEYLYNK-012 is testing the same structural idea (anti-PD-1 given WITH chemoradiation, then as consolidation, ± olaparib) against a benchmark that is genuinely hard: PACIFIC delivered PFS 16.8 vs 5.6 months (HR 0.52), OS 47.5 vs 29.1 (HR 0.68), 5-year OS 42.9%. So the $439M peak in 2030 rests on a dual-primary readout due around May 2027 in a setting with a documented failure rate. Then note the second squeeze: even a win launches into Keytruda's IV biosimilar cliff (~2028–29), which is why the curve turns down after 2030 and why the branded value depends on subcutaneous Qlex (IP to ~2039) rather than on the molecule. The scientific stakes here exceed the commercial ones.
Threats land:KEYLYNK-012 joins SKYSCRAPER-03, PACIFIC-2 and EA5181 in missing, the concurrent-IO-plus-CRT approach has failed three times and carries added pneumonitis risk, and the entire page goes to zero with no fallback.
Modelled path:The dual-primary reads out positive around 2027, pembrolizumab launches ~2028 and takes a deliberately minority challenger slice of the IO category (durvalumab modelled as retaining ~0.62 of the US and ~0.66 of the EU mature IO fraction), peaking at $439M in 2030 before biosimilar erosion of the molecule pulls it back to $304M.
Levers land:Both PFS and OS win clearly, guidelines elevate pembrolizumab to co-standard or preferred, and the subcutaneous Qlex formulation eases chair time against IV durvalumab in the consolidation phase, turning a minority challenger share into a genuine standard-of-care transfer.
Pembrolizumab's challenger uptake, the residual of the IO category left after durvalumab's assumed retention, is the figure most at risk: an Ormeval scoping estimate of how fast a ten-year NCCN Category 1 standard cedes share after a hypothetical positive trial, with no efficacy result, no approval and no label to anchor it.
At a glance
Mechanism anti-PD-1
Clinical
Commercial
Development to approval
This indication is not yet approved: the phases show development stage and regulatory approval is expected, not granted (~2028 (US, scenario, contingent on positive KEYLYNK-012 + approval)). Per-market timing reflects the company's own guidance (SEC / IR / earnings). Status cross-checked against Merck & Co. disclosures and trial registries.
For Merck this is a franchise-defense and franchise-expansion play: a positive KEYLYNK-012 would extend Keytruda into the one major NSCLC setting durvalumab owns, and would be existential for AstraZeneca's branded Stage III US/EU share. But the commercial stakes for Merck are bounded by timing, pembrolizumab would launch here (~2028) exactly as Keytruda IV faces biosimilars, so the branded value is carried by the subcutaneous formulation (Keytruda Qlex, IP to ~2039) and by Merck's commercial reach, not by a long clean-molecule runway. The scientific significance (does concurrent + consolidation anti-PD-1 beat sequential durvalumab?) outweighs the standalone indication revenue.
Unresectable Stage III NSCLC after concurrent chemoradiation is the consolidation window durvalumab (PACIFIC) has owned since 2018. KEYLYNK-012 puts pembrolizumab (± olaparib), integrated WITH chemoradiation and continued as consolidation, directly against durvalumab. IF it wins on PFS/OS and is approved (~2028), pembrolizumab would compete for a slice of an entrenched market, a conditional, pre-approval scenario, not a reported revenue line.
Unresectable Stage III NSCLC is locally-advanced disease past surgical eligibility but not yet metastatic, a narrow, high-value curative-intent window (~18–28% of NSCLC by market) historically managed with chemoradiation alone (~15% 5-yr survival) until PACIFIC made durvalumab consolidation standard of care. Across the 8 modelled markets ~65,000 patients/year complete concurrent CRT and are fit for consolidation IO, the same pool the PACIFIC model sizes. KEYLYNK-012 does not grow this pool; it contests who supplies its immunotherapy. Pembrolizumab's differentiation attempt is to integrate anti-PD-1 concurrently with CRT (not only as consolidation) and to add PARP inhibition (olaparib) on top.
KEYLYNK-012 is the ONLY live randomized head-to-head against the PACIFIC standard of care in unresectable Stage III NSCLC: a three-arm Phase 3 study (n≈870) of concurrent chemoradiation plus pembrolizumab, followed by pembrolizumab + olaparib placebo (Arm A) or pembrolizumab + olaparib (Arm B), versus chemoradiation followed by durvalumab consolidation (Arm C, the active comparator). Dual primary endpoints are PFS (BICR, RECIST 1.1) and OS. It has NOT read out (ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING, primary completion May 2027). This model is a forward scenario contingent on a positive result and approval; several concurrent-CRT IO strategies (SKYSCRAPER-03, PACIFIC-2, EA5181) have FAILED in this exact setting, so a negative outcome is a live possibility that would void it.
There is no guideline position for pembrolizumab in unresectable Stage III post-CRT: it is investigational until KEYLYNK-012 reads out. A positive dual-primary result would be required before any NCCN/ESMO listing, which typically lags approval by 6–18 months.
Randomized (1:1:1), Phase 3; unresectable, locally-advanced Stage III NSCLC; all arms receive 3 cycles concurrent platinum-doublet chemoradiation. Without progression: Arm A = pembrolizumab + olaparib placebo; Arm B = pembrolizumab + olaparib; Arm C (active comparator) = durvalumab consolidation (PACIFIC regimen). ~190 sites. Dual primary endpoints PFS (BICR, RECIST 1.1) and OS. Started Jul 2020; ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING; primary completion May 2027 (CT.gov, updated May 2026).
Pre-approval · Phase III · conditional scenario
This indication is not approved. The revenue below is a modelled scenario that assumes approval and launch around 2028, every input (epidemiology, trial, pricing) is cited, but the approval itself is uncertain. It is an estimate, not guidance and not a reported figure. Read the pivotal-trial and development-timeline sections below for the regulatory basis.
Load-bearing 0/1 sourced. ASSUMED uptake is yours to change.
PRE-APPROVAL SCENARIO. KEYLYNK-012 has NOT read out. All revenue is a conditional forward projection that assumes the trial meets its dual primary endpoints (PFS + OS) vs durvalumab and is approved. If the trial misses, as SKYSCRAPER-03, PACIFIC-2 and EA5181 did in this setting, pembrolizumab earns nothing here.
This indication only, not Keytruda's total revenue
Pembrolizumab given WITH concurrent chemoradiation and then as consolidation (± olaparib) in unresectable, locally-advanced Stage III NSCLC without progression, tested head-to-head against durvalumab consolidation (the PACIFIC regimen) in KEYLYNK-012.
Reported actuals are always drawn and need no chip: a cited reported figure is a fact, not a claim. Everything forward of them is one of the 4 kinds above.
$0
8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN) · modelled net revenue · 2026 (forecast)
Peak $439M · launch 2028 → 2034
modeled history (left of today)·click any year to decompose its funnel below.
Measured band: none - no measured band: n<8
Bull / bear elsewhere in the product are a sensitivity (fixed multipliers), not this band.
PRE-APPROVAL SCENARIO, there are NO reported actuals for pembrolizumab in this indication because it is not approved here and KEYLYNK-012 has not read out. Every figure is a conditional forward projection contingent on a positive dual-primary result (~2027) and approval (~2028). Revenue is zero in every market before launch. This scenario contests the SAME addressable pool as the durvalumab/PACIFIC model and must not be summed with it as if both fully own the pool.
No reported anchor exists at this grain: companies publish this asset as one product line and never split it by indication × country, so every year above is modelled, including the years already past. The claims below are scored against reported actuals wherever a program has them.
A forecast year closes when an actual is reported for it. A miss is the distance from that actual, signed as the claim fell: under it, or over it.
| Claim | Closed years | Worst miss | Worst miss % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ormeval modelMODELLED · Ormeval · live | - | no closed year yet | - |
A superseded team version keeps its own row: what it was off by is still a fact about that version. A row with no closed year is not a good score.
What it shows. A modelled base-case net-revenue curve for this indication, year by year, split at 'today' into modelled history and forecast, with the branded curve shown against its in-class rivals.
What to look for. The peak year and how steep the decline is after loss of exclusivity, and where a rival's curve crosses yours, that crossing is the share the model has you losing.
Common misread. Reading the pre-'today' portion as reported actuals (it's modelled), or treating the base case as a company target. It is one deterministic Ormeval-modelled scenario anchored to cited actuals, not guidance and not analyst consensus.
Key model assumptions · Two soft inputs carry the headline. Price is a modelled anti-PD-1 net (~$170k US, from Keytruda's $12,272 per 200 mg dose across an assumed ~10-month consolidation course; ex-US mirrored off durvalumab Stage III analogues). And the EU5-plus-UK pool assumes a PD-L1 ≥1% gate borrowed from durvalumab's EMA label, the digest is explicit that pembrolizumab's actual Stage III label is unknown and this is a comparability assumption, not a known restriction.
The decline is defended, not certain
The post-2030 decline is not about this indication at all: it is Keytruda IV biosimilar erosion from ~2029–30, a dated molecule-level event that happens to land almost on top of the modelled launch. That makes the direction sound but the magnitude highly dependent on one assumption, that subcutaneous Qlex defends the majority of branded value. If SC conversion runs slower than assumed the fall is much steeper; if it works as intended this indication barely declines at all.
What would change our mind
The base case is wrong at the May 2027 primary completion if KEYLYNK-012's dual-primary PFS and OS do not both beat durvalumab consolidation, three prior trials of the same concurrent strategy failed in this setting, so this is the specific, dated, high-probability test the whole page turns on. It is separately wrong if pembrolizumab's Stage III label, should it come, carries a PD-L1 restriction in the US or Japan rather than only the EU, since the model assumes all-comers in those markets and a biomarker gate would cut the addressable pool directly.
A scenario is your own assumptions layered on Ormeval’s cited baseline. We never change the baseline; save as many named scenarios as you like and click one to load it back later.
| Driver · 2026 | US | FR | DE | IT | ES | UK | JP | CN | Total | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lung cancer incidence (2026) | 231k | 51k | 63k | 45k | 31k | 52k | 139k | 1.08M | 1.69M | GLOBOCAN 2022 |
New lung-cancer cases per year; +1%/yr for ageing demographics. Shown for 2026: 2024 basis +1%/yr → ×1.020. Country-specific GLOBOCAN 2022 incidence, cross-checked to national registries. Same denominator as the durvalumab/PACIFIC model, this indication contests the SAME pool, it does not create a new one. +1%/yr ageing trend. | ||||||||||
| × NSCLC | 85% | 87% | 78% | 85% | 84% | 83% | 91% | 85% | share, not summed | KBP · SEER · ZfKD |
Non-small-cell histology (vs small-cell). Country-specific NSCLC fraction, identical to the PACIFIC funnel (same setting): France ~87%, Germany ~78%, Japan ~91%, others ~83–85%. | ||||||||||
| × Stage IIIest | 28% | 21% | 22% | 22% | 28% | 25% | 18% | 24% | share, not summed | NCDB · GECP · NCR |
Locally-advanced Stage III (AJCC/UICC TNM) at diagnosis. Wide cross-market spread, identical to the PACIFIC funnel: Spain/US high (~28%), FR/DE/IT ~21–22%, Japan ~18%, China ~24% blend. | ||||||||||
| × Unresectableest | 74% | 76% | 78% | 80% | 74% | 85% | 57% | 67% | share, not summed | TREAP · Provencio · Adizie |
Not resected → routed to definitive chemoradiation. Driven by surgical-resection practice, identical to the PACIFIC funnel: UK ~85% unresectable, Japan ~57% (aggressive resection), others ~74–80%. | ||||||||||
| × Received concurrent CRTest | 48% | 60% | 55% | 45% | 50% | 32% | 60% | 40% | share, not summed | NCDB · NLCA · Gunma |
Of unresectable, those who receive concurrent (not sequential/palliative) chemoradiation, the KEYLYNK-012-eligible route. Health-system RT-capacity lever, identical to the PACIFIC funnel: UK lowest (~32%), FR/JP highest (~60%), China ~40%. | ||||||||||
| × Complete CRT, progression-freeest | 68% | 68% | 68% | 68% | 66% | 66% | 68% | 66% | share, not summed | Arunachalam 2024 |
Of cCRT recipients, those who complete and are progression-free, the consolidation-addressable pool. ~68% of cCRT recipients complete and are progression-free (completion 78% × no-progression 87%), identical to the PACIFIC funnel. Uptake/share is handled in the competitive layer below to avoid double-counting. | ||||||||||
| × PD-L1 ≥1% (assumed EU/UK gate) | 100% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 100% | 100% | share, not summed | assumption (EMA durva analogue) |
SCENARIO ASSUMPTION: EU5 + UK are modelled with the same PD-L1 ≥1% gate the EMA applied to durvalumab; US/Japan/China all-comers. Pembrolizumab's actual label is unknown pre-approval. Pembrolizumab has no Stage III consolidation label; to keep the eligible pool comparable to the incumbent, EU5+UK carry the durvalumab-style PD-L1 ≥1% gate (~67% of testable), US/JP/CN all-comers. Flagged as an assumption, not a known label. | ||||||||||
| = Addressable consolidation pool | 13k | 1.9k | 2.1k | 1.4k | 1.2k | 1.3k | 5.3k | 39k | 65k | computed |
Incidence × the rates above, the pool fit for consolidation IO this year, the same pool durvalumab currently serves. Pool erosion (LDCT screening stage-migration + perioperative/neoadjuvant IO diverting resectable patients) is modelled identically to the PACIFIC pool, this indication does not change the epidemiology, only who supplies the immunotherapy. Pre-launch years are irrelevant to pembrolizumab revenue (zero until ~2028). | ||||||||||
| × Keytruda uptake (branded) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | share, not summed | ASSUMED |
Per-market branded uptake of the addressable pool this year (launch ramp net of competitors & biosimilars). See the competitive curve below; pick a market for its access basis. | ||||||||||
| = Treated with Keytruda | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | computed · assumed input |
Addressable pool × branded uptake. | ||||||||||
| × Net price / patient (2026) | $157K | $69K | $76K | $92K | $37K | $88K | $60K | $46K | per patient, not summed | Keytruda WAC · anti-PD-1 basis |
Anti-PD-1 WAC basis. US Keytruda list ≈$208k/yr (200 mg q3w × ~17 doses); a ~10-month realized consolidation course net of ~15–18% GTN ≈ $170k. Ex-US mirrors the durvalumab Stage III net structure (same setting, comparable dosing/duration), stated as an anti-PD-1 analogue. −4%/yr forward erosion. Every figure is modelled net, not a reported price. SHOWN FOR 2026: the per-market figures in "Net pricing: assumptions & basis" below are the 2024 basis; this row applies -4%/yr from 2024 (×0.9216), so it is the same source value at a later date, not a second price. | ||||||||||
| = Net revenue / yrOutput | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | computed · assumed input |
Treated patients × realized net price. | ||||||||||
Regional revenue mix · 2026 modelled
Model estimate, sourced from the funnel table above
No reported competitor-share series exists for this setting, so every trajectory below is modelled from approval timing, label breadth and the funnel, not reported data.
In-class share, consolidation immunotherapy after CRT: 8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN)
Each agent's share of the addressable consolidation pool. The branded-pembrolizumab line is ZERO until its scenario launch (~2028) and then ramps by taking a challenger slice of the pool durvalumab holds; the durvalumab line is the incumbent it contests. The branded (pembrolizumab) line is the only one this model monetizes.
Share of the 65k-patient addressable consolidation pool this regimen is modelled to treat, by year
Keytruda is modelled at 0% of this pool in 2026, peaking at 7% in 2031; each point of share is revenue on the chart above.
Scope: 8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN) · follows the market selector above
Rivals' share, same pool
Durvalumab (Imfinzi) holds the largest rival share in 2026, 24% of the pool; that is the share Keytruda has to take or hold.
Rivals, rescaled - note the axis maximum (30%), which is smaller than the plot above. Same data, a linear axis of its own, so a low-share entrant is readable rather than a hairline on the baseline.
Pembrolizumab entry timing = a positive KEYLYNK-012 readout (~2027) + staggered approvals (~2028 US → ~2030 CN); durvalumab shown as the retained-incumbent share; pembro biosimilars timed to Keytruda molecule LOE (~2028–29). All competitor trajectories are stated scenario assumptions, not reported shares.
Readouts, approvals and LOE events for pembrolizumab and its rivals in this setting. Estimated timing is flagged; confirmed dates cited from Merck & Co. disclosures and regulator databases.
Dual-primary PFS + OS readout vs durvalumab, the event this entire scenario is contingent on
Potential FDA approval IF positive; anti-PD-1 consolidation enters durvalumab's setting
Potential EMA/PMDA approvals IF positive; branded window already shadowed by pembro biosimilars
Pembrolizumab composition-of-matter LOE / biosimilars (US ~2028, EU ~2028); Qlex SC defends branded value
✓ = reported public fact, cited. Upcoming timing is estimated from company guidance and trial registries, a projection, not a commitment. Approvals = US (FDA) · EU (EMA) · Japan (PMDA) · China (NMPA). ● = pembrolizumab, competitor tag = a same-setting rival.
Residual unmet need: why the field stays alive
Even on durvalumab, ~57% of consolidation patients have died by 5 years (5-yr OS 42.9%; 5-yr PFS ~33%). That residual relapse is precisely why a challenger with a differentiated schedule (concurrent anti-PD-1 + PARP) is being tested, and why the setting stays contested despite durvalumab's dominance. The open question KEYLYNK-012 answers is whether pembrolizumab's approach converts that unmet need into an OS advantage over the incumbent.
The synthesis for this indication, grounded in the cited trial, guideline and access facts above.
Rivals in this setting (Unresectable Stage III NSCLC after CRT (challenger))
Swipe to explore →
| Rival / regimen | Developer | Position in this setting | Approved (date, trial, n) | Head start vs this regimen (months) | Failed endpoint | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durvalumab (Imfinzi), consolidation (Live threat) | AstraZeneca | Live threatwhyEntrenched standard of care since 2018, the incumbent KEYLYNK-012 must beat; defends with PACIFIC-9 and real-world evidence | not in the record | not in the record | - | PACIFIC (durvalumab benchmark, NEJM 2017) |
| Sugemalimab (Cejemly) (Ex-US rival) | CStone / Pfizer | Ex-US rivalwhyApproved China + EU + UK (MHRA Feb 2026); minor ex-US branded rival | Feb 2026, GEMSTONE-301 | not in the record | - | GEMSTONE-301 (Lancet Oncol 2022) |
| Domestic China PD-1s (sintilimab et al.) (China rival) | Innovent / others | China rivalwhyCheaper, NRDL-adjacent domestic options crowd the China setting against any foreign entrant | not in the record | not in the record | - | PACIFIC-like China Ph3s |
| Atezolizumab + tiragolumab (Defeated) | Roche | DefeatedwhyFAILED (ESMO 2025), cautionary precedent for challengers in this setting | not in the record | not in the record | PFS | SKYSCRAPER-03 vs durvalumab |
| Durvalumab concurrent + CRT (Defeated) | AstraZeneca | DefeatedwhyFAILED, ↑toxicity (JCO 2025), concurrent IO+CRT precedent that missed | not in the record | not in the record | PFS / OS | PACIFIC (NEJM 2017); NCCN Cat 1 |
| Concurrent vs consolidation-only (Defeated) | NCI / ECOG-ACRIN | DefeatedwhyNEGATIVE (WCLC 2025), consolidation standard upheld | not in the record | not in the record | OS | EA5181 |
Not every rival is approved in every region, so a share here is the modelled position in the markets where it competes, not a global one.
Net pricing: assumptions & basis
Pembrolizumab is priced on an anti-PD-1 WAC basis (Keytruda 200 mg q3w = $12,272 list/dose; ~$208k list/year). For a ~10-month realized consolidation course net of gross-to-net, US net ≈ $170k; ex-US markets mirror the durvalumab Stage III net structure as same-setting analogues. All figures are MODELLED net, not reported.
Figures below are 2024 net prices, the basis the model is anchored on. The funnel applies -4%/yr from 2024, so the price it consumes for a later year is lower than the figure quoted here. Both come from this one value; the funnel row states the year it is showing.
US: Keytruda WAC ≈ $12,272 per 200 mg q3w dose (≈$208k/yr list); a ~10-month realized consolidation course net of ~15–18% gross-to-net ≈ $170k. Because pembrolizumab has no Stage III consolidation price, ex-US nets are set as anti-PD-1 analogues to the durvalumab setting (same disease, comparable dosing/duration): France ~$75k, Germany ~$82k (AMNOG-rebated), Italy ~$100k list-basis (net lower), UK ~$95k (confidential PAS), Spain ~$40k (managed-entry analogue), Japan ~$65k realized (NHI course), China ~$50k (self-pay + PAP). −4%/yr forward erosion, sharpened by pembrolizumab biosimilars from ~2028–29 (the branded line is defended by SC Keytruda Qlex, whose fresh IP runs to ~2039).
What it shows. The approval-to-reimbursement journey by market: when each payer granted access, on what terms (PD-L1 or comparator restrictions), and the lag between regulatory approval and reimbursed revenue.
What to look for. The access-lag column, approval is not revenue and some markets take a year or more. And the restrictions that narrow the eligible population below the full label.
Common misread. Assuming a US price or approval transfers to other markets. Ex-US payers benchmark against comparators and reference prices, so the net price and the covered population are usually smaller.
Rows ordered by access speed. The approval→reimbursement lag is commercially load-bearing, and it is not one number per drug: a monotherapy indication and a later combination extension file separately with a payer and can reach routine commissioning years apart, even within the same asset’s first-line setting.
| Market | HTA body | Decision | Access lag | PD-L1 | Comparator | Key outcome / MEA note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | FDA | pending (~2028) | scenario | not yet defined (KEYLYNK-012 all-comers) | Durvalumab consolidation | Pre-approval; contingent on positive KEYLYNK-012. Anti-PD-1 WAC basis (Keytruda 200 mg q3w = $12,272 list/dose). |
| Germany | G-BA / IQWiG | pending (~2029) | scenario | not yet defined | Durvalumab | AMNOG appraisal would follow EU approval; added-benefit vs durvalumab is the key question. |
| Japan | PMDA / NHI | pending (~2029) | scenario | not yet defined | Durvalumab | Pre-approval scenario; NHI pricing per anti-PD-1 course. |
| France | HAS | pending (~2029) | scenario | not yet defined | Durvalumab | ASMR vs durvalumab would gate the tariff; pre-approval. |
| Italy | AIFA | pending (~2029) | scenario | not yet defined | Durvalumab | Regional formulary lag would apply post-approval; pre-approval. |
| China | NMPA | pending (~2030) | scenario | not yet defined | Durvalumab / domestic PD-1s | Crowded domestic PD-1 field; self-pay + PAP basis assumed; pre-approval. |
| Spain | AEMPS | pending (~2030) | scenario | not yet defined | Durvalumab | Managed-entry basis assumed; pre-approval. |
| UK | NICE | pending (~2029) | scenario | not yet defined | Durvalumab | NICE appraisal vs durvalumab (PAS); pre-approval. |
How much each assumption could move the forecast, one at a time, over the same cited baseline.
This is a sensitivity illustration, not a probability: it shows how far each assumption could move the forecast, never how likely it is.
Set a target and solve for one lever, what it would have to reach, benchmarked against real comparable launches.
One lever at a time: the other assumptions stay at baseline, so the trade-off stays visible.
A model that shows where its own risk is, not a number to trust. Never investment advice.
Cite this forecast as recorded on Q2 2026 → A permanent record of these figures that does not change when the model does.
Every reported figure here traces to a public source below; the model's own assumptions are labelled where they appear.
Reported figures are public facts from company filings; the forward peak is Ormeval's own modelled estimate, not company guidance and not analyst consensus. Approval and readout dates are cross-checked against public regulator and company disclosures. Not investment advice.