Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of contemporary treatment, prevention, and screening strategies for melanoma: a review of evidence and implications for the Russian healthcare system

Background. The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies (TTs) has fundamentally changed the clinical management of melanoma, significantly improving survival outcomes both in unresectable disease and in the adjuvant setting. At the same time, these therapeutic innovations have substantially increased healthcare expenditures, which raises the importance of pharmacoeconomic evaluation in clinical and policy decision-making.
Objective: To analyze current methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy using real-world data (RWD), to summarize international experience in their application, and to evaluate the prospects for implementing RWD-oriented pharmacoeconomic approaches in the healthcare system of the Russian Federation.
Material and methods. Pharmacoeconomic studies published between 2010 and 2025 were analyzed using data from randomized clinical trials and RWD. Key outcomes assessed included costs, effectiveness, and utility, such as quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
Results. In most international models, ICIs – particularly anti-рrogrammed cell death protein 1 monotherapy – have more favorable costeffectiveness profiles in the treatment of unresectable melanoma compared with TTs, whereas combination regimens are characterized by a substantially higher budget impact. The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant therapy largely depends on the risk of recurrence and the cost of subsequent treatment for disease progression. Several studies show the high economic value of preventive and screening interventions aimed at early melanoma detection. The review highlights the need for cautious extrapolation of international pharmacoeconomic data to the Russian setting, taking into account national pricing policies, reimbursement mechanisms, and the absence of a formally established willingness-to-pay threshold.
Conclusion. The performed analysis of published studies shows that the use of RWD in pharmacoeconomic evaluations of pharmacotherapy allows refinement of model parameters and improves the robustness of economic conclusions; however, the applied approaches vary substantially in study design and data quality. The applicability of these approaches within the Russian healthcare system requires consideration of limitations related to the availability and structure of domestic RWD.

1. Kokushkin K.A., Zhuravleva M.V., Byakhov M.Y., et al. Review of pharmacoeconomic studies of melanoma treatment for the period 2018–2023. South Russian Journal of Therapeutic Practice. 2023; 4 (3): 36–44 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21886/2712-8156-2023-4-3-36-44.

2. Larkin J., Del Vecchio M., Mandalá M., et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III/IV melanoma: 5-year efficacy and biomarker results from CheckMate 238. Clin Cancer Res. 2023; 29 (17): 3352–61. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3145.

3. Samoylenko I.V., Belenkaya Y.V., Abramov M.E., et al. Changes in clinical guidelines of 2023 and 2025 on treatment of cutaneous and mucosal melanoma. Surgery and Oncology. 2025; 15 (3): 11–21 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17650/2949-5857-2025-15-3-11-21.

4. Faries M.B., Thompson J.F., Cochran A.J., et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376 (23): 2211–22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613210.

5. Leiter U., Stadler R., Mauch C., et al. Complete lymph node dissection versus no dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node biopsy positive melanoma (DeCOG-SLT): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17 (6): 757–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00141-8.

6. Omelyanovskiy V.V., Gorkavenko F.V., Ignatyeva N.V., et al. Real-world data: principles of use in decision making and in health technology assessment. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Sovremennaya farmakoekonomika i farmakoepidemiologiya / FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2023; 16 (2): 283–90 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2023.167.

7. Seidler A.M., Pennie M.L., Veledar E., et al. Economic burden of melanoma in the elderly population: population-based analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) – Medicare data. Arch Dermatol. 2010; 146 (3): 249–56. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2009.389.

8. Gogebakan K.C., Mukherjee K., Berry E.G., et al. Impact of novel systemic therapies on the first-year costs of care for melanoma among Medicare beneficiaries. Cancer. 2021; 127 (16): 2926–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33515.

9. Ma B., James M.T., Chan A.W., Mydlarski P.R. National trends in healthcare expenditures for the management of skin cancer in the United States. J Cutan Med Surg. 2025; 29 (1): 33–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754241293131.

10. Bateni S.B., Nguyen P., Eskander A., et al. Changes in health care costs, survival, and time toxicity in the era of immunotherapy and targeted systemic therapy for melanoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2023; 159 (11): 1195–204. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.3179.

11. Franken M.G., Leeneman B., Aarts M.J.B., et al. Trends in survival and costs in metastatic melanoma in the era of novel targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs. ESMO Open. 2021; 6 (6): 100320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100320.

12. Gribkova I.V., Krysanova V.S., Zavyalov A.A. Economic burden of skin melanoma ( literature review). Voprosy onkologii. 2020; 66 (3): 233–8 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37469/0507-3758-2020-66-3-233-238.

13. Zyryanov S.K., Orlova K.V. Clinical and economic analysis of treatment sequences with prolgolimab and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in adult patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous melanoma. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Sovremennaya farmakoekonomika i farmakoepidemiologiya / FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2023; 16 (4): 550–69 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2023.221.

14. Coyle D., Ko Y.J., Coyle K., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of systemic therapies in advanced pancreatic cancer in the Canadian health care system. Value Health. 2017; 20 (4): 586–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.002.

15. Elazzazy S., Al-Ziftawi N.H., Mohamed Ibrahim M.I., et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first-line treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a Markov's model-based evaluation. Front Oncol. 2024; 14: 1413676. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1413676.

16. Chi Y.L., Blecher M., Chalkidou K., et al. What next after GDP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds? Gates Open Res. 2020; 4: 176. https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13201.1.

17. van Boemmel-Wegmann S., Brown J.D., Diaby V., et al. Health care utilization and costs associated with systemic first-line metastatic melanoma therapies in the United States. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022; 18 (1): e163–74. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.21.00140.

18. Oh A., Tran D.M., McDowell L.C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab–ipilimumab combination therapy compared with monotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017; 23 (6): 653–64. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.6.653.

19. Bohensky M.A., Pasupathi K., Gorelik A., et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab compared with ipilimumab for the treatment of BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma in Australia. Value Health. 2016; 19 (8): 1009–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.013.

20. Meng Y., Hertel N., Ellis J., et al. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England. Eur J Health Econ. 2018; 19 (8): 1163–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0964-4.

21. Miguel L.S., Lopes F.V., Pinheiro B., et al. Cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced melanoma treatment in Portugal. Value Health. 2017; 20 (8): 1065–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.009.

22. Kohn C.G., Zeichner S.B., Chen Q., et al. Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition in BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35 (11): 1194–202. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.6336.

23. Loong H.H., Wong C.K.H., Leung L.K.S., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab compared to standard of care as first line treatment for patients with advanced melanoma in Hong Kong. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020; 18: 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-0200-9.

24. Wang J., Chmielowski B., Pellissier J., et al. Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in ipilimumab-naïve patients with advanced melanoma in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017; 23 (2): 184–94. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.2.184.

25. Özdemir D., Büssgen M. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2023; 16 (1): 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00611-7.

26. Ten Ham R.M.T., Rohaan M.W., Jedema I., et al. Cost-effectiveness of treating advanced melanoma with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes based on an international randomized phase 3 clinical trial. J Immunother Cancer. 2024; 12: e008372. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc2023-008372.

27. Gao T., Liu J., Wu J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabrafenib plus trametinib and vemurafenib as first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18 (12): 6194. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126194.

28. Garbe C., Amaral T., Peris K., et al. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 2: treatment – update 2022. Eur J Cancer. 2022; 170: 256–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2022.04.018.

29. Atkins M.B., Lee S.J., Chmielowski B., et al. Combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus combination nivolumab and ipilimumab for patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: the DREAMseq trial – ECOG-ACRIN EA6134. J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41 (2): 186–97. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.01763.

30. Ascierto P.A., Casula M., Bulgarelli J., et al. Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarker evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial. Nat Commun. 2024; 15 (1): 146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44475-6.

31. Qian M.F., Betancourt N.J., Pineda A., et al. Health care utilization and costs in systemic therapies for metastatic melanoma from 2016 to 2020. Oncologist. 2023; 28 (3): 268–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac219.

32. Pike E., Hamidi V., Saeterdal I., et al. Multiple treatment comparison of seven new drugs for patients with advanced malignant melanoma: a systematic review and health economic decision model in a Norwegian setting. BMJ Open. 2017; 7 (8): e014880. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014880.

33. Tawbi H., Bartley K., Seetasith A., et al. Economic and health care resource utilization burden of central nervous system metastases in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2022; 28 (3): 342–53. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2022.28.3.342.

34. Crealey G.E., Hackett C., Harkin K., et al. Melanoma-related costs by disease stage and phase of management in Ireland. J Public Health. 2023; 45 (3): 714–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdac154.

35. Buja A., Rugge M., De Luca G., et al. Malignant melanoma: direct costs by clinical and pathological profile. Dermatol Ther. 2022; 12 (5): 1157–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-022-00715-z.

36. Standage H., Hersh A.R., Caughey A., et al. What is the costeffective treatment for melanoma patients with a positive sentinel node? Ann Surg Oncol. 2021; 28 (5): 2913–22. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09137-7.

37. Koelblinger P., Hoellwerth M., Dernoscheg M.T., et al. Adjuvant anti–PD-1 antibody treatment in stage III/IV melanoma: real-world experience and health economic considerations. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2021; 19 (8): 1186–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddg.14511.

38. Gerbasi M.E., Stellato D., Ghate S.R., et al. Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective. J Med Econ. 2019; 22 (12): 1243–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2019.1635487.

39. Wahler S., Müller A., Fuchs S., et al. Adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma – cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for BRAF 600 mutated tumors. Health Econ Rev. 2022; 12 (1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-021-00347-7.

40. Mulder E., Smit L., Grünhagen D.J., et al. Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant systemic therapies for patients with high-risk melanoma in Europe: a model-based economic evaluation. ESMO Open. 2021; 6 (6): 100303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100303.

41. Kosolapov E.G., Kochenkov F.S., Ziryanov S.K., Gladkov I.A. Costeffectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus targeted therapies in advanced melanoma. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika / Good Clinical Practice. 2017; 2: 12–24 (in Russ.).

42. Sultanbaev A.V. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma treatment: advances and obstacles. Creative Surgery and Oncology. 2025; 15 (1): 57–65 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2025-15-1-57-65.

43. Adamson A.S., Jarmul J.A., Pignone M.P. Screening for melanoma in men: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2020; 35 (4): 1175–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05443-3.

44. Buja A., Rivera M., Girardi G., et al. Cost-effectiveness of a melanoma screening programme using whole disease modelling. J Med Screen. 2020; 27 (3): 157–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141319885998.

45. Law C.K., Cust A.E., Smit A.K., et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia. Genet Med. 2023; 25 (12): 100970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2023.100970.

46. Gordon L., Olsen C., Whiteman D.C., et al. Prevention versus early detection for long-term control of melanoma and keratinocyte carcinomas: a cost-effectiveness modelling study. BMJ Open. 2020; 10 (2): e034388. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034388.