ArticlePloS one2015
Cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy for intraocular melanoma.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proton Beam Therapy for Cancer in Children and Adults: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2021Pooled it
- miR-204 suppresses uveal melanoma cell migration and invasion through negative regulation of RAB22A.Functional & integrative genomics · 2023Article
- Costs of Newly Funded Proton Therapy Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in The Netherlands.Cancers · 2023Article
- Characteristics, Treatments, and Survival of Uveal Melanoma: A Comparison between Chinese and American Cohorts.Cancers · 2022Article
- Treatment of Uveal Melanoma With Radioactive Iodine 125 Implant Compared With Proton Beam Radiotherapy.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2022Article
- The Economic Value of MR-Imaging for Uveal Melanoma.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- A systematic review of health economic evaluations of proton beam therapy for adult cancer: Appraising methodology and quality.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Follow the nevus: the cost-utility of monitoring for growth of choroidal nevi.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Article
- The evolution of proton beam therapy: Current and future status.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProton beam therapy is a commonly accepted treatment for intraocular melanomas, but the literature is lacking in descriptions of patient preferences of clinical outcomes and economic impact. In addition, no economic evaluations have been published regarding the incremental cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy compared with enucleation or plaque brachytherapy, typical alternative treatments. We, therefore, conducted a cost-utility analysis of these three approaches for the treatment of intraocular melanomas. MATERIALS AND
methodsA Markov model was constructed. Model parameters were identified from the published literature and publicly available data sources. Cost-effectiveness of each treatment was calculated in 2011 US Dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated assuming enucleation as reference. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on all model parameters. A decision threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year was used to determine cost-effectiveness.
resultsEnucleation had the lowest costs and quality-adjusted life-years, and plaque brachytherapy had the highest costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Compared with enucleation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for plaque brachytherapy and proton beam therapy were $77,500/quality-adjusted life-year and $106,100/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Results were highly sensitive to multiple parameters. All three treatments were considered optimal, and even dominant, depending on the values used for sensitive parameters.
conclusionBase-case analysis results suggest enucleation to be optimal. However, the optimal choice was not robust to sensitivity analyses and, depending on the assumption, both plaque brachytherapy and proton beam therapy could be considered cost-effective. Future clinical studies should focus on generating further evidence with the greatest parameter uncertainty to inform future cost-effectiveness analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.