PUBLISHER: Grand View Research | PRODUCT CODE: 1631519
PUBLISHER: Grand View Research | PRODUCT CODE: 1631519
The global stomach cancer treatment market size is estimated to reach USD 11.19 billion by 2030, registering to grow at a CAGR of 12.5% from 2025 to 2030 according to a new report by Grand View Research, Inc. Increasing uptake of immunotherapy and targeted therapy, coupled with the launch of new drugs, is expected to fuel growth.
According to Globocan, the incidence of gastric cancer in 2020 was around 1.1 million, which is expected to increase to 1.42 million by 2030. Increasing knowledge regarding the molecular basis of the disease has led to a rise in the number of targeted drugs and immunotherapy drugs being developed and launched in the market. HER-2 targeted drugs such as Herceptin have been available in the market since 2010. Another targeted drug, Cyramza, which is a VEGF-targeting monoclonal antibody, has been available since 2014. EGFR and PD-1 targeted drugs and immunotherapies are currently being developed for the treatment of gastric cancer.
The approval and subsequent launch of drugs in the clinical pipeline are also expected to drive the gastric cancer therapy market. For instance, in March 2021, the NMPA approved Eli Lilly and Innovent Biologics' drug Sintilimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, for the treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in China. Furthermore, in May 2020, the U.S. FDA granted the orphan drug designation to Enhertu for the treatment of gastric cancers. Subsequently, in January 2021, the U.S. FDA approved Enhertu for the treatment of advanced or metastatic forms of the disease.
Patent expiry of key drugs such as Herceptin and subsequent launch of biosimilars are expected to restrain the growth of the gastric cancer therapy market. Additionally, lesser adoption of targeted therapy due to high costs might hamper the growth of the market. For instance, Cyramza was not considered cost-effective as compared to other drugs. It was rejected by NICE due to a lack of cost-effectiveness in England. Furthermore, the product was rejected for reimbursement in France due to a lack of additional benefits compared to the clinically relevant comparators.