Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Tier 3 — Observational / field trialPeer-reviewedConventional

Comparative cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Yingtao Lin, Chang Wang, Xiaoyan He, Qimin Yao, Jian Chen

Frontiers in Immunology · 2024

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

This health economic analysis, using data from the KEYNOTE-826 trial, evaluated whether pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab represents a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced cervical cancer within the Chinese healthcare system. The combination therapy yielded an additional 1.18 QALYs over five years but at an ICER of US$114,275.67 per QALY—exceeding China's willingness-to-pay threshold. However, the analysis identified a patient subgroup (PD-L1 CPS ≥10) where cost-effectiveness could be improved through pembrolizumab price adjustment.

Regional applicability

The findings may be broadly relevant to NHS decision-making on pembrolizumab access for cervical cancer, though cost-effectiveness thresholds and healthcare system structures differ between China and the UK. UK applicability would depend on whether comparable ICER thresholds and patient stratification criteria are adopted by NICE or other UK health technology assessment bodies.

Key measures

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US$ per QALY, treatment costs (US$), programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS)

Outcomes reported

The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy and bevacizumab versus standard chemotherapy alone for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer over a five-year horizon. Key outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, incremental costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) relative to China's willingness-to-pay threshold.

Theme
Policy, governance & rights
Subject
Out of scope / non-food
Study type
Research
Study design
Health economic modelling study (partitioned survival model) based on clinical trial data
Source type
Peer-reviewed study
Status
Published
Geography
China
System type
Human clinical
DOI
10.3389/fimmu.2023.1345942
Catalogue ID
SNmoht1vsb-l98v98

Topic tags

Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.