ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
Cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for patients with brain tumors in Sweden: results from a non-randomized prospective multicenter study.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advancements in radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Developing an automatic decision-assistance tool to choose proton/photon radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed the cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for treating patients with brain tumors in Sweden.
methodsData from a longitudinal non-randomized study performed between 2015 and 2020 was used, and included adult patients with brain tumors, followed during treatment and through a one-year follow-up. Clinical and demographic data were sourced from the longitudinal study and linked to Swedish national registers to get information on healthcare resource use. A cost-utility framework was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PBT vs. CRT. Patients in PBT group (n = 310) were matched with patients in CRT group (n = 40) on relevant observables using propensity score matching with replacement. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective and included costs related to inpatient and specialized outpatient care, and prescribed medications. The health outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), derived from the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Generalized linear models (GLM) and two-part models were used to estimate differences in costs and QALYs.
resultsPBT yielded higher total costs, 14,639 US$, than CRT, 13,308 US$, with a difference of 1,372 US$ (95% CI, -4,914-7,659) over a 58 weeks' time horizon. Further, PBT resulted in non-significantly lower QALYs, 0.746 compared to CRT, 0.774, with a difference of -0.049 (95% CI, -0.195-0.097). The probability of PBT being cost-effective was < 30% at any willingness to pay.
conclusionsThese results suggest that PBT cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment for brain tumours, compared to CRT.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.