Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Compared with conventional fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) regimen, gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) can prolong survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but the economic impact of this practice remains unknown. It's significant to evaluate its values by taking both efficacy and cost into consideration.We developed a Markov model with 10 years horizon to compare the cost-effectiveness of GP and FP regimen. Clinical data came from a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Direct costs related to the treatment were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Utility values were gathered from published study. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to confirm the robustness of the model.The total cost of FP regimen was $12,587 and yielded 0.964 QALYs, while the total cost of GP regimen was $17,920 and yielded 1.685 QALYs. The ICER of GP regimen versus FP regimen was $7,386 which was far less than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($26,508) in China.From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, GP regimen with superior efficacy was proved to be more cost-effective than the traditional FP regimen. It is likely that GP regimen may be recommended as the primarily first-line treatment option for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.