ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2023
Population-Level Impact of Omitting Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Early Breast Cancer Women: Evidence from an Economic Evaluation in Germany.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Reporting of Validation Efforts for Cancer Health Economic Decision Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Under-reporting of Validation Efforts for Health Economic Models Persists Despite the Availability of Validation Tools: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Clinical impact of the Z0011 trial on axillary surgical management in Australia and New Zealand from the BreastSurgANZ Quality Audit.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Axillary Surgery for Breast Cancer in 2024.Cancers · 2024Review
- Axillary Surgical Attitude Changing with Retrospective Application ofEuropean journal of breast health · 2023Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial showed that complete axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) did not improve survival benefits in patients with one or two tumour-involved sentinel lymph nodes and undergoing breast conservation. Still, a considerable number of the Z0011-eligible patients continue to be treated with cALND in various countries. Given the potential economic gain from implementation of the Z0011 recommendations, we quantified population-level impacts of omitting cALND among Z0011-eligible patients in clinical practice.
methodsThis 2-year economic analysis adopted both the perspective of patients under statutory insurance and the societal perspective, using data collected prospectively from 179 German breast cancer units between 2008 and 2015. The estimation of cost savings and health gain relied on a single decision tree, which considered three scenarios: clinical practice at the baseline; actual implementation in routine care; and hypothetical full implementation in all eligible patients.
resultsData for 188,909 patients with primary breast cancer were available, 13,741 (7.3%) of whom met the Z0011 inclusion criteria. The use of cALND decreased from 94.3% in 2010 to 46.9% in 2015, resulting in a gain of 335 quality-adjusted life-years and a saving of EUR50,334,756 for the society. Had cALND been omitted in all eligible patients, the total gain would have been more than double.
conclusionsThe implementation of the Z0011 recommendations resulted in substantial savings and health gain in Germany. Our findings suggest that it is beneficial to introduce additional policy measures to promote further uptake of the Z0011 recommendations in clinical practice.
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.