ArticleHead & neck2018
Cost-effectiveness analysis of salvage therapies in locoregional previously irradiated head and neck cancer.
Article in Head & neck, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral nutritional supplements with nutritional counselling in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2021Article
- The Current Role of Salvage Surgery in Recurrent Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to present our evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of salvage therapies for patients with recurrent head and neck cancer.
methodsA Markov model was developed with 5 salvage treatment strategies: (1) platinum-based chemotherapy alone; (2) chemotherapy plus cetuximab; (3) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) alone; (4) SBRT plus cetuximab; and (5) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus chemotherapy. Clinical parameters were obtained from comprehensive literature review and 2016 Medicare reimbursement. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained.
resultsIn the base case analysis, no treatment strategy was cost-effective at a WTP threshold. The most cost-effective therapy was SBRT alone with $150 866 per QALY gained. If median survival of SBRT alone was ≥11 months, SBRT was considered to be cost-effective.
conclusionNone of the treatment strategies were cost-effective. However, SBRT-based reirradiation has potential to be cost-effective.
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.