Inami Katsuaki
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fujinomiya City General Hospital, Fujinomiya, Japan.
Front Health Serv. 2025 Jul 28;5:1616223. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1616223. eCollection 2025.
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.
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.
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.
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.
晚期和复发性宫颈癌通常需要姑息化疗,且预后较差。最近,包括细胞毒性药物、抗血管生成药物和免疫检查点抑制剂在内的各种全身治疗方法的成本效益已得到评估。
我们对以英文发表的关于晚期或复发性宫颈癌基于化疗的治疗的增量成本效益比(ICER)的研究出版物进行了系统综述。从PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science检索文献,无日期限制,并根据预先定义的纳入标准进行筛选。共纳入10项研究。
传统的一线铂类双联化疗(如顺铂加紫杉醇)一直被认为具有成本效益,ICER远低于常见的支付意愿(WTP)阈值。添加贝伐单抗可提高生存率,但会增加成本,产生临界或不利的ICER(如在美国为155,000美元/质量调整生命年)。派姆单抗和卡度尼利单抗等免疫治疗药物具有临床益处,但往往超过WTP阈值,尤其是在低收入和中等收入环境中。西米普利单抗作为二线治疗的ICER为111,000美元/质量调整生命年,接近美国WTP阈值上限,而替索单抗维朵汀等药物按当前价格在经济上不可行。成本效益因地区而异,取决于定价、医疗保健系统和当地WTP阈值。
尽管新型药物能带来额外的生存益处,但其高昂成本往往超过质量调整生命年的收益。政策制定者和临床医生应考虑采用此类治疗方法的经济影响,并优先考虑基于价值的策略,包括价格谈判、生物类似药的使用以及生物标志物指导的患者选择。未来的研究应推广基于证据的定价和获取模式,以支持全球可持续的癌症治疗。