Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41254239›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026

Cryoablation Versus Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early-Stage, Low-Risk Breast Cancer ≤ 1.5 cm: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Xiao Wu, Kanti Pallav Kolli, Rita A Mukhtar, Maggie Chung, Bonnie N Joe, Ryan M Kohlbrenner

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xiao WuInterventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M361, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Kanti Pallav KolliInterventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M361, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Rita A MukhtarDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Maggie ChungBreast Imaging, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Bonnie N JoeBreast Imaging, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ryan M KohlbrennerInterventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M361, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. ryan.kohlbrenner@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2479-0698

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare ultrasound-guided cryoablation (BCA) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for patients with early-stage, low-risk breast cancer using a cost-effectiveness analysis. MATERIALS AND

methodsA Markov decision tree was constructed comparing BCA and BCS for unifocal small (≤ 1.5 cm), lymph node-negative, ultrasound-visible breast cancer from a payer's perspective over a 5-year horizon. Clinical outcomes after cryoablation were based on the ICE3 trial, and those after BCS were based on a meta-analysis of 17 trials. Outcomes were measured in US dollars and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Base case calculation, probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

resultsBase case analysis showed BCA achieved comparable health outcomes (0.01-0.09 QALY higher) at a lower cost (at least $17,682 of cost saving per patient). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed cryoablation to be the better strategy in majority of the iterations driven by its lower procedural cost. BCS became the better strategy when the annual mortality after BCA was > 2.1%, equivalent to a 5-year cancer survival after BCA < 90.0%. BCA was the more optimal strategy when its annual local recurrence risk was < 51.5% or distant recurrence risk was < 1.04%. BCS became the more cost-effective strategy if the cost of BCA was $20,906 more than BCS. BCA remained more cost-effective when accounting for follow-up, provided the difference in costs between BCA and BCS was less than $4000 annually.

conclusionBCA is a cost-effective strategy for patients with early-stage, low-risk, sonographically visible breast cancer when compared to BCS.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCryosurgeryMastectomy, SegmentalCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisDecision TreesFemaleHumansMarkov ChainsNeoplasm StagingQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUltrasonography, InterventionalBreast conserving surgeryBreast cryoablationCost-effectiveness analysisEarly-stage breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID41254239
PMCPMC12868015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.