ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Comparison of health economics in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and CT-guided cryoablation for the management of T1 renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of a prospective Danish cohort.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study used real-world outcomes data to compare the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with T1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective data from June 2019 to February 2021 from two Danish University hospitals, following patients with RCC stage T1 treated with either PCA or RAPN, were used to provide procedural and clinical outcome parameters. A Markov model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs, incorporating health states for stable disease, local recurrence, metastasis, and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching using specific covariates was carried out to ensure that the two populations evaluated were matched. Analyses were conducted comparing time to local recurrence or metastases, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. Treatment-specific mortality was not included in the model due to the low number of deaths observed.
resultsThere were no significant differences between PCA and RAPN in terms of local recurrence (HR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.34-1.85; p = 0.72), metastases (HR = 2.09; 95% CI = 0.69-6.26; p = 0.19), or Clavien-Dindo III + complications (5.5% vs 2.5%; p = 0.325). There were significant differences in the mean duration of hospital stay (1.13 days versus 1.90 days; p < 0.001). QALYs gained were nearly identical for each treatment; however, PCA was associated with a net monetary benefit of €9,045 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €40,000/QALY.
conclusionThe present study suggests that PCA could equally benefit patients with RCC T1 by providing cost savings, making it a more cost-effective treatment without compromising oncological outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b, Analysis based on clinically sensible costs or alternatives, including multi-way sensitivity analyses.
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.