ArticlePloS one2024
Cost-utility analysis of proton beam therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer in Japan.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeProton beam therapy (PBT) has recently been included in Japan's health insurance benefit package for certain cancer types. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of PBT as a replacement for conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) that is not covered by social insurance.
methodsWe estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PBT as a replacement for 3D-CRT, using clinical evidence from the literature and expert opinions. We used an economic model, decision tree, and Markov model to illustrate the courses followed by patients with LAEC. Effectiveness was estimated as quality-adjusted life years (QALY) using utility weights for the health state. Social insurance fees were calculated as costs. We assumed two base cases depending on the two existing levels of fees for PBT in social insurance: 2,735,000 Japanese yen (US$20,652) or 1,600,000 yen (US$13,913). The stability of the ICER against these assumptions was appraised using sensitivity analysis.
resultsThe effectiveness of PBT and 3D-CRT was 2.62 and 2.51 QALY, respectively. The estimated ICER was 14,025,268 yen (US$121,958) per QALY for the higher fee level and 7,026,402 yen (US$61,099) for the lower fee level. According to the Japanese threshold for cost-effectiveness of anticancer therapy of 7,500,000 yen (US$65,217) per QALY gain, the inclusion of PBT for LAEC in the benefit package of social insurance is cost-effective if a lower fee is applied.
conclusionPBT is a cost-effective alternative to 3D-CRT for LAEC and making it available to patients under social insurance could be justifiable.
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.