SynthesisFrontiers in health services2025
Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy for advanced and recurrent cervical cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.