ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2025
A cost-effectiveness analysis of the effect of hospital variation in the probability of providing treatment with curative intent in potentially curable esophageal and gastric cancer patients.
Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2025. 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.
- Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Toxicity Associated With the Surgical Management of Oesophageal Cancer.ANZ journal of surgery · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For potentially curable esophageal cancer (EC) and gastric cancer (GC) patients, the probability of treatment with curative intent varies between hospitals and is associated with survival. This study examines the effect of this variation on health economics outcomes and cost-effectiveness. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective in potentially curable EC or GC patients selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Resource use and costs were estimated for each treatment strategy from diagnosis until five years follow-up using a top-down costing method. Hospitals were divided into tertiles of low, medium, or high probability of treatment with curative intent using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Mean total costs per patient was not significantly different between low, medium, and high probability hospitals for EC (n = 9468) (€47,532 vs. €47,384 vs. €47,825), while for GC (n = 3085) costs were significantly lower in low compared to medium and high probability hospitals (€27,759 vs. €30,183 vs. €29,589, both P < 0.001). Costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) were slightly lower in high probability hospitals for both EC and GC (EC: €29,181 vs. €28,646 vs. €27,659, GC: €25,003 vs. €22,505 vs. €20,495). ICERs were highest for high vs. medium probability hospitals for EC (€4900/QALY) and for medium vs. low probability hospitals for GC (€10,539/QALY). Variation in treatment with curative intent between hospitals affects health economics outcomes to a limited extent. Although all hospital comparisons were cost-effective, for the highest QALY gain, it is recommended to treat potentially curable patients as in high probability hospitals.
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.