ArticleBMC health services research2023
Cost-effectiveness of hypofractionated versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for the treatment of men with early glottic cancer: a study in the Brazilian public and private health system.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate whether hypofractionated radiotherapy (HYPOFRT) is a cost-effective strategy than conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for early-stage glottic cancer (ESGC) in the Brazilian public and private health systems.
methodsAdopting the perspective of the Brazilian public and private health system as the payer, a Markov model with a lifetime horizon was built to delineate the health states for a cohort of 65-year-old men after with ESGC treated with either HYPOFRT or CFRT. Probabilities of controlled disease, local failure, distant metastasis, and death and utilities scores were extracted from randomized clinical trials. Costs were based on the public and private health system reimbursement values.
resultsIn the base case scenario, for both the public and private health systems, HYPOFRT dominated CFRT, being more effective and less costly, with a negative ICER of R$264.32 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (public health system) and a negative ICER of R$2870.69/ QALY (private health system). The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of local failure, controlled disease, and salvage treatment costs. For the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicates that there is a probability of 99.99% of HYPOFRT being cost-effective considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$2,000 ($905.39) per QALY (public sector) and willingness-to-pay threshold of R$16,000 ($7243.10) per QALY (private sector). The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsConsidering a threshold of R$ 40,000 per QALY, HYPOFRT was cost-effective compared to CFRT for ESGC in the Brazilian public health system. The Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) is approximately 2,4 times (public health system) and 5,2 (private health system) higher for HYPOFRT than CFRT, which could open the opportunity of incorporating new technologies.
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.