ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2018
Cost analysis of a wait-and-see strategy after radiochemotherapy in distal rectal cancer.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic Evaluation of 'Watch and Wait' Following Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Watch and Wait Strategy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Update From Results of Recent Clinical Trials.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- Patient-Relevant Costs for Organ Preservation versus Radical Resection in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Article
- Article
- Dose-volume parameters of MRI-based active bone marrow predict hematologic toxicity of chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonoperative management (NOM) of rectal cancer after radiochemotherapy (RtChx) in patients with a clinical complete response is an emerging strategy with the goal to improve quality of life without compromising cure rates. However close monitoring with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and rectoscopy is required for the early detection of possible local regrowths. We therefore performed a cost analysis comparing the costs of immediate surgery with the costs for MRI and rectoscopy during surveillance as in the upcoming CAO/ARO/AIO-16 trial.
methodsMRIs and rectoscopies of patients with a clinical complete response after RtChx over the course of 5 years were simulated and compared with immediate surgery after RtChx. Transition probabilities between health stages (no evidence of disease, local regrowth and salvage surgery, distant failure) were derived from the literature. Costs for ambulatory imaging and endoscopic studies were calculated according to the "Gebührenordnung für Ärzte" (GOÄ), costs for surgery based on the diagnosis-related groups system. Three different scenarios with higher costs for salvage surgery or higher regrowth rates were simulated.
resultsA patient without disease recurrence will generate costs for MRI and rectoscopy of 6344 € over 5 years compared with costs of 14,511 € for immediate radical surgery. When 25% local regrowths with subsequent salvage surgery were included in the model, the average costs per patient are 8299 €. In our simulations a NOM strategy was cost-saving compared with immediate surgery in all three scenarios.
conclusionA NOM strategy with an intensive surveillance using MRI and rectoscopy will produce costs that are expected to remain below those of immediate surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29987338What 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.