ArticleMedicine2019
Cost-effectiveness analysis of positron-emission tomography-computed tomography in preoperative staging for nonsmall-cell lung cancer with resected monometastatic disease.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- FDG-PET-CT as an early detection method for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Alpha emitter radium-223 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A cost-utility analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was, from the Chinese healthcare perspective, to assess the cost-effectiveness of positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) with F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) in preoperation staging for nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with resected monometastatic disease based on a retrospective study. This study was conducted from January 2017 to February 2019 at an academic hospital.
methodsA Markov model and 3 decision-tree models were designed to calculate the long-term medical costs, outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the 2 diagnostic strategies (PET-CT and conventional CT). Model robustness was assessed in sensitivity analyses.
resultsFor the base-case analysis, preoperative PET-CT evaluation for NSCLC with resected monometastatic disease provided an additional 1.475, 2.129, and 2.412 life-years (LYs), in the time horizon of 10-, 20-, and 30-year, respectively, and the ICERs for the PET-CT group compared with the conventional CT group were $1153, $1393, and $1430 per LY, separately. The acceptability curves demonstrated that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds ranged from $500 to $3000/LY, the probability of cost-effectiveness changed varied dramatically, and at WTP > $3000, the probability that the PET-CT group achieved cost-effectiveness was 100%. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the models we designed were robust.
conclusionCompared with conventional CT scan, preoperative F-FDG PET-CT evaluation for patients with resected monometastatic NSCLC is cost-effective from the Chinese healthcare perspective. Preoperative F-FDG PET-CT evaluation should be popularized for patients with resected monometastatic NSCLC.
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.