ArticleJAMA network open2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Trimodal Therapy and Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sexual life and intimate relationship experience among bladder cancer patients: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Bladder preservation vs. radical cystectomy for T2N0M0: trends and survival outcomes from SEER.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Trimodal therapy (TMT) is included as an alternative to radical cystectomy (RC) for definitive management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in current clinical guidelines. Moreover, a 2023 retrospective analysis reported similar oncologic outcomes between these treatments among patients deemed fit for RC. Data regarding the comparative value of these treatments are lacking. Objective: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation compared cost-effectiveness of treatments using a health transition state microsimulation model of patients with bladder cancer treated between 2005 and 2017 with 5- and 10-year horizons from a Medicare perspective. Model probabilities were informed by multicenter retrospective analyses published in 2023 comparing TMT with RC. The index patient was aged 71 years, with clinical stage T2-4aN0M0 MIBC, solitary tumor smaller than 7 cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, adequate bladder function, and lack of multifocal or extensive carcinoma in situ. Patients unfit for RC, radiation, or cisplatin-based chemotherapy were excluded. Exposures: TMT and RC. Main Outcome and Measures: Primary outcomes included effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: For the index patient, at 5 years, the average cost was $30 525 higher for TMT than RC. Average QALYs were 3.87 and 3.94 for RC and TMT, respectively. As such, TMT was not cost-effective at 5-year (ICER, $464 291 per QALY) or 10-year (ICER, $308 638 per QALY) time horizons. On 1-way sensitivity analyses, TMT would become cost-effective if (1) TMT costs were less than $17 605; or (2) TMT resulted in an 11.6% improvement in metastasis-free survival relative to RC. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation study of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC, TMT was associated with improved quality of life but was not cost-effective relative to RC at 5 and 10 years given higher treatment costs. These findings highlight the importance of developing policy initiatives that help reduce TMT costs and of providing patients with accurate expectations of long-term toxic effects to help guide preference-sensitive care.
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.