Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy for advanced and recurrent cervical cancer: a systematic review.

IF 2.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2025-07-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2025.1616223
Katsuaki Inami
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy for advanced and recurrent cervical cancer: a systematic review.","authors":"Katsuaki Inami","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2025.1616223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Advanced and recurrent cervical cancer often requires palliative chemotherapy and is associated with poor prognosis. Recently, various systemic therapies-including cytotoxic drugs, anti-angiogenic agents, and immune checkpoint inhibitors-have been evaluated for their cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of English language-based research publications reporting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for chemotherapy-based treatments in advanced or recurrent cervical cancer. Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science without date restrictions and screened based on predefined eligibility criteria. A total of 10 studies were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Traditional first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (e.g., cisplatin plus paclitaxel) was consistently found to be cost-effective, with ICERs well below common willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. The addition of bevacizumab improved survival but increased costs, yielding borderline or unfavorable ICERs (e.g., $155,000/QALY in the U.S.). Immunotherapy agents such as pembrolizumab and cadonilimab offered clinical benefits but often exceeded WTP thresholds, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. Cemiplimab had an ICER of $111,000/QALY as a second-line treatment, near the upper U.S. WTP threshold, while agents like tisotumab vedotin were not economically viable at current prices. Cost-effectiveness varied across regions depending on pricing, healthcare systems, and local WTP thresholds.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Although newer agents provide incremental survival benefits, their high costs often outweigh QALY gains. Policymakers and clinicians should consider the economic impact of adopting such therapies and prioritize value-based strategies, including price negotiations, biosimilar use, and biomarker-guided patient selection. Future research should promote evidence-based pricing and access models to support sustainable cancer care worldwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"5 ","pages":"1616223"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12336249/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2025.1616223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Advanced and recurrent cervical cancer often requires palliative chemotherapy and is associated with poor prognosis. Recently, various systemic therapies-including cytotoxic drugs, anti-angiogenic agents, and immune checkpoint inhibitors-have been evaluated for their cost-effectiveness.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of English language-based research publications reporting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for chemotherapy-based treatments in advanced or recurrent cervical cancer. Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science without date restrictions and screened based on predefined eligibility criteria. A total of 10 studies were included.

Results: Traditional first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (e.g., cisplatin plus paclitaxel) was consistently found to be cost-effective, with ICERs well below common willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. The addition of bevacizumab improved survival but increased costs, yielding borderline or unfavorable ICERs (e.g., $155,000/QALY in the U.S.). Immunotherapy agents such as pembrolizumab and cadonilimab offered clinical benefits but often exceeded WTP thresholds, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. Cemiplimab had an ICER of $111,000/QALY as a second-line treatment, near the upper U.S. WTP threshold, while agents like tisotumab vedotin were not economically viable at current prices. Cost-effectiveness varied across regions depending on pricing, healthcare systems, and local WTP thresholds.

Discussion: Although newer agents provide incremental survival benefits, their high costs often outweigh QALY gains. Policymakers and clinicians should consider the economic impact of adopting such therapies and prioritize value-based strategies, including price negotiations, biosimilar use, and biomarker-guided patient selection. Future research should promote evidence-based pricing and access models to support sustainable cancer care worldwide.

化疗治疗晚期和复发宫颈癌的成本-效果:一项系统综述。
简介:晚期和复发宫颈癌往往需要姑息性化疗,并与预后不良相关。最近,各种全身疗法——包括细胞毒性药物、抗血管生成药物和免疫检查点抑制剂——已经被评估其成本效益。方法:我们对以英语为基础的研究出版物进行了系统回顾,这些出版物报道了晚期或复发宫颈癌化疗基础治疗的增量成本-效果比(ICERs)。文献从PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science中检索,没有日期限制,并根据预定义的资格标准进行筛选。共纳入10项研究。结果:传统的一线铂基双重化疗(如顺铂加紫杉醇)一直被认为是具有成本效益的,ICERs远低于常见的支付意愿(WTP)阈值。贝伐单抗的加入提高了生存率,但增加了成本,产生了临界或不利的ICERs(例如,在美国,155,000美元/QALY)。pembrolizumab和cadonilimab等免疫治疗药物提供临床益处,但经常超过WTP阈值,特别是在低收入和中等收入环境中。作为二线治疗,Cemiplimab的ICER为111,000美元/QALY,接近美国WTP上限,而像tisotumab vedotin这样的药物在目前的价格下在经济上是不可行的。成本效益因定价、医疗系统和当地WTP阈值而异。讨论:虽然较新的药物提供了增加的生存效益,但它们的高成本往往超过了质量收益。政策制定者和临床医生应考虑采用此类疗法的经济影响,并优先考虑基于价值的策略,包括价格谈判、生物类似药的使用和生物标志物引导的患者选择。未来的研究应促进基于证据的定价和获取模式,以支持全球范围内的可持续癌症治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信