Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: In the absence of evidence on whether neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is more beneficial for various tumor treatments, economic evaluation (EE) can assist medical decision making. There is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness and their prospective evaluation is less likely in the future. Therefore, a systematic review and metaanalysis about EE for NAC versus AC in solid tumor help compare these therapies from various perspectives. Methods: Various databases were searched for studies published from inception to 2021. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta -Analyses reporting guidelines and economic -specific guidelines. The data were pooled using a random effects model when possible. Results: The retrieval identified 15 EE studies of NAC versus AC in 8 types of cancer. NAC is the dominant strategy for pancreatic, head and neck, rectal, prostate cancers and colorectal liver metastases. For ovarian cancer, NAC is cost-effective with a lower cost and higher or similar quality -adjusted life -year. There were no significant differences in cost and outcomes for lung cancer. For stage IV or high -risk patients with ovarian or prostate cancer, NAC was cost-effective but not for patients who were not high risk. Conclusions: The EEs results for NAC versus AC were inconsistent because of their different model structures, assumptions, cost inclusions, and a shortage of studies. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity across EEs evidence synthesis. More high -quality EE studies on NAC versus AC in initial cancer treatment are necessary.