ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2016
Comparative cost-effectiveness of focal and total salvage
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical Resource Use and Medical Costs for Radiotherapy-Related Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Clinical efficacy and prognostic factors of CT-guidedCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2020Article
- Radiation treatment of prostate cancers - the contemporary role of modern brachytherapy techniques.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFocal salvage (FS) iodine 125 ( MATERIAL AND
methodsA decision analytic Markov model was developed, which compares costs and QALYs associated with FS and TS. A 3-year time horizon was adopted with six month cycles, with a hospital perspective on costs. Probabilities for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and their impact on health-related quality of life (SF-36) were derived from clinical studies in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, was performed to quantify the joint decision uncertainty up to the recommended maximum willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY.
resultsFocal salvage dominates TS as it results in less severe toxicity and lower treatment costs. Decision uncertainty is small, with a 97-100% probability for FS to be cost-effective compared to TS (€0-€80,000/QALY). Half of the difference in costs between FS and TS was explained by higher treatment costs of TS, the other half by higher incidence of severe toxicity. One-way sensitivity analyses show that model outcomes are most sensitive to utilities and probabilities for severe toxicity.
conclusionsFocal salvage
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.