Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
First-line [
Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. 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.
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of preoperative parathyroid imaging in primary hyperparathyroidism: A synthesis of eight health-economic analyses.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Review
- Ectopic parathyroid adenoma posterior to the trachea in the superior mediastinum causing refractory primary hyperparathyroidism: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe randomized controlled multicentre APACH2 trial showed that first-line [
methodsThe effectiveness criterion per imaging strategy was the rate of normocalcemia at one month post true-positive first-line imaging-guided MIP. The medico-economic analysis, carried out from the payer's perspective, integrated direct hospital costs up to 6 months after randomization. The result of the cost-effectiveness analysis was calculated in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), establishing the average cost necessary to cure an additional person by switching from the usual MIBI1 strategy to the new FCH1 strategy. Sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the ICER.
resultsThe APACH2 trial enrolled 57 patients from November 2019 to May 2022 in four centres, randomized between FCH1 (n = 29) or MIBI1 (n = 28). The differential cost between FCH1 and MIBI1 strategies was €136.5 (average cost FCH1 €3,843.5 (95% CI: 3442.5-4244.5) vs MIBI1 €3,707.0 (95% CI: 3606.9- 3807.6), p = 0.53), with a differential effectiveness of 29% (average effectiveness FCH1 85% (95% CI: 0.71-0.99) vs MIBI1 56% (95% CI: 0.36-0.76), p = 0.037). The ICER of FCH1 compared to MIBI1 was €471 for referring one additional patient to MIP followed by normocalcemia. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed ICER to vary from €-567 to €1,507. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of our finding that the FCH1 strategy is slightly more expensive but also more effective than the MIBI1 strategy.
conclusionFirst-line FCH PET/CT in the surgical management of pHPT allows more patients to be referred directly to successful outpatient MIP at a minimal additional cost from a health insurance point of view.
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.