ArticleJAMA network open2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Proton Therapy Compared With Photon Therapy in Breast Cancer.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Proton therapy reduces radiation exposure to the heart, lungs, and contralateral breast compared with conventional photon-based breast radiotherapy. However, its clinical benefit-particularly relative to photon deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH)-remains uncertain, and its high cost raises questions about cost-effectiveness. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proton therapy compared with photon-based radiotherapy, including DIBH and free breathing (FB), among patients with breast cancer in Belgium. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation using state-transition microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted between December 2024 and February 2025 from the Belgian health care payer perspective. The model incorporated patient-specific probabilities of complications, including cardiovascular disease, secondary malignant tumors, and radiation pneumonitis, derived from normal tissue complication probability models and representative national data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Participants were a simulated cohort of Belgian women with breast cancer, reflecting national incidence and survival data, stratified by baseline cardiovascular risk, smoking status, and age. Exposures: Comparison of proton therapy vs photon therapy delivered via DIBH or FB. Scenarios were analyzed based on tumor laterality, regional nodal irradiation, and varying cost assumptions for proton therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed in euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Cost-effectiveness defined by a willingness-to-pay threshold of €45 000 per QALY. Results: The simulated cohort included 1 million patients (310 000 aged 60 to 69 years [31.0%]). Proton therapy was not cost-effective in any scenario under base case assumptions. The greatest potential benefit was observed in patients with moderate to high baseline cardiovascular risk receiving left-sided irradiation with regional nodal irradiation, with an ICER of €292 438 (95% CI, €290 598-294 299) per QALY for proton therapy compared with photon free breathing. Under the most optimistic cost scenario (full treatment capacity and a 15% reduction in proton therapy costs), proton therapy was cost-effective compared with photon free breathing in approximately 36 000 of 1 000 000 simulated patients (3.6%), but it was not cost-effective compared with photon deep inspiration breath-hold in any subgroup, with ICERs exceeding €700 000 per QALY across all comparisons. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this economic evaluation of proton therapy for breast cancer suggest that proton therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective for most Belgian patients under current cost conditions, except for a small subset of high-risk patients, especially when DIBH is available.
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.