ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of hospital treatment volume and survival outcomes in endometrial cancer in Japan.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveHospital treatment volume affects survival in patients with endometrial cancer; notably, initial treatment at high-volume centers improves survival outcomes. Our study assessed the effect of hospital treatment volume on cost-effectiveness and survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer in Japan.
methodsA decision-analytic model was evaluated using the following variables and their impact on cost-effectiveness: 1) hospital treatment volume (low-, intermediate-, and high-volume centers) and 2) postoperative recurrent risk factors based on pathological findings (high- and intermediate-risk or low-risk). Data were obtained from the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology database, systematic literature searches, and the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was used as a measure of effectiveness. The model was built from a public healthcare perspective and the impact of uncertainty was assessed using sensitivity analyses.
resultsA base-case analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at high-volume centers was below a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 with a maximum of ¥3,777,830/4.28 QALY for the high- and intermediate-risk group, and ¥2,316,695/4.57 QALY for the low-risk group. Treatment at the high-volume centers showed better efficiency and cost-effectiveness in both strategies compared to intermediate- or low-volume centers. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model outcome was robust to changes in input values. With the WTP threshold, treatment at high-volume centers remained cost-effective in at least 73.6% and 78.2% of iterations for high- and intermediate-risk, and low-risk groups, respectively.
conclusionTreatment at high-volume centers is the most cost-effective strategy for guiding treatment centralization in patients with endometrial cancer.
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.