Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026
Flow-sorting and Exome Sequencing of the Reed-Sternberg Cells of Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma
Published on: June 10, 2017
Cost-utility Analysis of R-CHOP vs CHOP in Patients with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Systematic Review
Camille Francesca T Cadag1, Althea B Lorenzo1, Justine Marie M Mercado1
1Department of Clinical, Social and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of the Philippines Manila.
Background And Objectives:
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) ranks 11th in cancer incidence and mortality in the Philippines with the combination chemotherapy composed of Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone (CHOP) being commonly used as treatment. However, the addition of Rituximab to CHOP (R-CHOP) has been shown to exhibit higher response rates and longer remissions, potentially improving quality of life. Currently, there is conflicting evidence on the cost-utility of CHOP versus R-CHOP. The study aimed to describe the patient-and country-specific factors, and treatment modalities used for NHL and systematically review cost-utility evidence of R-CHOP versus CHOP in adult NHL patients.
Methods:
A systematic literature search of cost-utility studies on R-CHOP versus CHOP for NHL treatment was performed on eight databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOHost, Cochrane, York Research Database, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, and HERDIN, where 607 studies were identified. Upon screening using an eligibility criteria, 10 studies were included and critically assessed using four appraisal tools: CHEERS, Drummond, Cooper, and ECOBIAS. These were performed independently by two authors with a third author assisting to help reach a consensus.
Results:
All studies from high-income countries (HICs) (n=8) and low-middle-income country (LMIC) (n=1) suggested that R-CHOP was more cost-effective for NHL treatment than CHOP in terms of utility outcomes. The study conducted in a low-income country (LIC) (n=1) suggested the opposite, favoring CHOP over R-CHOP. Methodological differences such as perspective, discount rate, willingness-to-pay (WTP), time horizon, and economic model were observed. Methodological limitations include completeness of data reported and credibility of sources used.
Conclusion:
The results of this review shall be interpreted with caution as those favoring R-CHOP over CHOP for NHL treatment in terms of cost-utility were concentrated in HICs. More economic evaluations from LICs, LMICs, and upper-middle income countries (UMICs) are needed for a robust conclusion. Additionally, establishing a universally recognized guideline for economic evaluations is essential to guide researchers effectively.
