Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Apr 14;15(1):12765.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-97504-3.

Cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors for second-line HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China

Caifeng Jia  1 , Sen Zhang  2 , Jie Wang  3 , Bing Feng  4 , Fenghao Shi  5   6 , Meiqi Wang  7 , Sainan Li  7 , Hao Xu  8 , Mingxia Wang  9
Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors for second-line HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China

Caifeng Jia et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Hormone receptor HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer is the most common subtype in China, representing 60-70% of cases, with a rising incidence due to aging demographics and lifestyle changes. CDK4/6 inhibitors such as palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib have been proven effective in treating HR+/HER2 - advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC/MBC), though they may increase healthcare costs. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors for the second-line treatment of HR+/HER2 - ABC/MBC from the Chinese healthcare perspective. A cohort-based partitioned survival model was utilized, drawing on the survival data published from PALOMA-3, MONALEESA-3 and MONARCH-2 trials. Costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 15-year time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model results. In the base-case analysis, the model estimated health benefits to be 2.10 QALYs for palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), 2.55 QALYs for ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL), and 2.60 QALYs for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL), with corresponding costs of $34,423, $41,119, and $48,019. Compared with PAL + FUL, the ICERs were $27,161 per QALY for ABE + FUL and $15,073 per QALY for RIB + FUL. The robustness of these findings was confirmed through uncertainty analyses. Among the three strategies, the most cost-effective probabilities of PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and ABE + FUL were 0%, 99.8%, and 0.2% under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 3 times per-capita gross domestic product ($37,738) in China. This study indicated that both RIB + FUL and ABE + FUL are cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with PAL + FUL. Notably, RIB + FUL offers the greatest cost-effective advantage for the second-line treatment of HR+/HER2 - ABC/MBC among these three CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Keywords: Breast cancer; CDK4/6 inhibitors; China; Cost-effectiveness; Fulvestrant; HR-positive/HER2-negative.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval: The data of the PFS/OS was based on previously published trials, and ethics approval or specific consent procedures were not applicable for this study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Model structure of the PartSA model.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Tornado diagram of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant versus palbociclib plus fulvestrant. ABE, abemaciclib, PAL, palbociclib.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Tornado diagram of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus palbociclib plus fulvestrant. RIB, ribociclib, PAL, palbociclib.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Tornado diagram of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant versus ribociclib plus fulvestrant. ABE, abemaciclib, RIB, ribociclib.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Scatter plots of costs and effectiveness for different treatment options.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Scatter plots of costs and effectiveness of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant versus palbociclib plus fulvestrant. ABE, abemaciclib, PAL, palbociclib.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Scatter plots of costs and effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus palbociclib plus fulvestrant. RIB, ribociclib, PAL, palbociclib.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bray, F. A. O. et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer J. Clin.74, 1542–4863. 10.3322/caac.21834 (2024). - PubMed
    1. Han, B. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2022. J. Natl. Cancer Center4, 47–53 10.1016/j.jncc.2024.01.006 (2024). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lei, S. et al. Global patterns of breast cancer incidence and mortality: A population-based cancer registry data analysis from 2000 to 2020. Cancer Commun. (London England). 41, 1183–1194. 10.1002/cac2.12207 (2021). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fan, L. et al. Breast cancer in China. Lancet Oncol.15, e279–289. 10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70567-9 (2014). - PubMed
    1. Hamilton, E. & Infante, J. R. Targeting CDK4/6 in patients with cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev.45, 129–138. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.03.002 (2016). - PubMed

MeSH terms