ArticleExpert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research2022
Comparative cost-effectiveness of radiotherapy among older women with hormone receptor positive early-stage breast cancer.
Article in Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast cancer radiobiology: The renaissance of whole breast radiation fractionation (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2024Review
- A Tutorial on Net Benefit Regression for Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Censored Data from Randomized or Observational Studies.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Association of Patient Experience of Care and Radiation Therapy Initiation Among Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus hormonal therapy with radiotherapy, compared to hormonal therapy alone among women 66 and older with hormone receptor positive early-stage breast cancer in the United States (US).
methodsThis study was conducted from a U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services perspective and an eight-year time horizon. Both costs (2020 US$) and health utilities (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) were obtained from retrospective studies using the SEER linked with Medicare and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the addition of radiotherapy to hormonal therapy versus hormonal therapy alone after BCS was estimated by an unbiased doubly robust estimator. Sensitivity analyses were conducted through bootstrapping to estimate credible intervals.
resultsThe addition of radiotherapy to hormonal therapy after BCS yielded the highest clinical benefits (2.66 QALYs) and costs ($19,424.27) compared to its hormonal therapy alone after BCS (0.77 QALYS; $2,028.58). The ICER was estimated to be $9,174.94/QALY. Sensitivity analyses did not change the direction of the findings.
conclusionsThe results implicated that the combination of radiotherapy and hormonal therapy is cost-effective in the US.
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.