ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Cost-effectiveness of an outreach program for HCC screening in patients with cirrhosis: a microsimulation modeling study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies for Improving Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance Rates.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Article
- From bench to bedside: Molecular mechanisms, diagnostic tools, and therapeutic strategies in liver fibrosis.Liver research (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- Hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: a health economic evaluation.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in hepatocellular carcinoma screening: applications and challenges.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patients with cirrhosis are at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but few undergo guideline-recommended semi-annual screening. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrate that mailed outreach can increase screening versus visit-based screening. We estimated the costs and cost-effectiveness of an outreach strategy versus usual care. Methods: We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a mailed outreach program versus usual care for HCC screening in a cohort of 10,000 patients with cirrhosis. Model inputs were based on literature review (2005-current), and costs were based on inflation-adjusted estimates from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare claims data. We conducted one-way sensitivity analyses for HCC incidence, outreach costs, efficacy of the outreach strategy to increase screening, and efficacy of curative (versus palliative) HCC treatments. Findings: Mailed outreach was estimated to cost $32.45 per patient in the first year and $21.90 per patient in subsequent years. The outreach program increased the number of HCC patients detected at an early stage by 48.4% and increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 300. Cost savings from these increases offset the costs of mailed outreach. Mailed outreach remained cost-effective across a wide range of HCC incidence rates, outreach costs, efficacy of the outreach strategy to increase screening, and the efficacy of curative HCC treatments. Annual out-of-pocket patient costs in the outreach arm were low at $13 per year. Interpretation: Mailed outreach to encourage HCC screening in patients with cirrhosis dominates usual care and should be considered for implementation in routine practice. Funding: National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas.
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.