ArticleCancer medicine2020
A decision analysis comparing three strategies for peritoneal lavage cytology testing in staging of gastric cancer in China.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- A preoperative predictive tool to assess the need for staging laparoscopy in oesophagogastric cancer patients.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
- A decision analysis comparing three strategies for peritoneal lavage cytology testing in staging of gastric cancer in China.Cancer medicine · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositive peritoneal cytology (PCY) indicates metastasis (M1) in gastric cancer (GC) patients; both the American and Chinese guidelines recommend laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) for cytology. However, relatively high costs impair the widespread use of LPL in some resource-limited regions in China, and the cost-effectiveness of PCY testing remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a decision analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PCY testing by comparing the guideline-recommended intraoperative LPL, a newly proposed preoperative percutaneous peritoneal lavage (PPL), and a third strategy of exploratory laparotomy with no cytology testing (ELNC) among GC patients.
methodsWe developed a decision-analytic Markov model of the aforementioned three strategies for a hypothetical cohort of GC patients with curative intent after initial imaging, from the perspective of Chinese society. We estimated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as primary outcomes; we also conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the model's robustness.
resultsWe found that ELNC was dominated (i.e., more expensive and less effective) by PPL and LPL. LPL was the most cost-effective method with an ICER of US$17,200/QALY compared to PPL, which was below the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$29,313 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, PPL was more likely to be cost-effective with a lower WTP threshold.
conclusionsCytology testing through either LPL or PPL was less expensive and more effective than ELNC among GC patients. Moreover, LPL was the most cost-effective modality at the current WTP threshold, while PPL could potentially be cost-effective in lower-income areas.
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.