ArticleNeuro-oncology2016
The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
66 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Global economic differences in modern glioblastoma care - a systematic review.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of tumor treating fields (TTF) combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy only in the treatment of glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of tumor treating fields therapy for high-grade gliomas.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Quality-adjusted life years in glioma patients: a systematic review on currently available data and the lack of evidence-based utilities.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Alternating electric tumor treating fields for treatment of glioblastoma: rationale, preclinical, and clinical studies.Journal of neurosurgery · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of the long-term use of temozolomide for treating newly diagnosed glioblastoma in Germany.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2018Trial
- Proton Bragg peak flash stereotactic radiosurgery for recurrent glioblastoma reirradiation.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Tumor Treating Fields and the Glioblastoma Microenvironment: Mechanistic Convergences with Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2026Review
- Review
- Methodological aspects of economic evaluations and health economic models in glioblastoma: A systematic literature review.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Review
- LPC-engineered liposomes activate transcytosis for paclitaxel brain delivery and potentiation of TTFields/TMZ via TALECT regimen in glioblastoma.Theranostics · 2026Article
- Developing Immunoniosomes (INs): Antibody and Fab conjugations of niosomal nanoparticles via UV-NBS and EDC/NHS chemistry for treating glioblastoma cells.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2025Article
- Impact of alternating electric fields therapy for newly diagnosed WHO grade 4 astrocytoma on patient survival: a real-world propensity-score adjusted prospective multicenter study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Recent advances in Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy for glioblastoma.The oncologist · 2025Review
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors for glioblastoma: emerging science, clinical advances, and future directions.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Review
- Cost of medical care for malignant brain tumors at hospitals in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group brain-tumor study group.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Real-world cost- effectiveness analysis: Tumor Treating Fields for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in China.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- Real-world experience with TTFields in glioma patients with emphasis on therapy usage.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is strong concern about the costs associated with adding tumor-treating fields (TTF) therapy to standard first-line treatment for glioblastoma (GBM). Hence, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TTF therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with GBM.
methodsWe developed a 3-health-state Markov model. The perspective was that of the French Health Insurance, and the horizon was lifetime. We calculated the transition probabilities from the survival parameters reported in the EF-14 trial. The main outcome measure was incremental effectiveness expressed as life-years gained (LYG). Input costs were derived from the literature. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/LYG. We used 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate the model uncertainty.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, adding TTF therapy to standard of care resulted in increases of life expectancy of 4.08 months (0.34 LYG) and €185 476 per patient. The ICER was €549 909/LYG. The discounted ICER was €596 411/LYG. Parameters with the most influence on ICER were the cost of TTF therapy, followed equally by overall survival and progression-free survival in both arms. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 95% confidence interval of the ICER of €447 017/LYG to €745 805/LYG with 0% chance to be cost-effective at a threshold of €100 000/LYG.
conclusionThe ICER of TTF therapy at first-line treatment is far beyond conventional thresholds due to the prohibitive announced cost of the device. Strong price regulation by health authorities could make this technology more affordable and consequently accessible to patients.
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.