ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026
Cost-Utility analysis of Patient-Led Follow-Up after Rectal Cancer Compared to Standard Follow-Up: A three-year follow-up of the FURCA Randomised Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRectal cancer survivors are at risk of late adverse effects that impair quality of life. This study evaluates the cost-utility of a patient-led follow-up programme introduced in the Danish FURCA randomised controlled trial (RCT), aimed at improving patient outcomes and optimising healthcare resource use compared to standard hospital-based follow-up.
methodsThe cost-utility analysis was performed from a societal perspective over a 3-year horizon, incorporating healthcare costs, prescription drug use, productivity losses, all derived from Danish register data, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from RCT-collected EQ-5D-5L data. Incremental cost-effectiveness was assessed using regression models and non-parametric bootstrapping, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses exploring heterogeneity in outcomes.
resultsA total of 336 patients were randomised to intervention and control groups. Over 3 years, mean healthcare costs were €40,208 for the intervention group and €41,190 for the control group (difference -€980; 95% CI -€7120 to €5159). Mean QALYs were 2.24 and 2.20, respectively (difference 0.028; 95% CI -0.106 to 0.163). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -€35,048 per QALY gained, indicating dominance. Scatterplots of bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) revealed iterations in all four quadrants, reflecting substantial uncertainty in both costs and effects. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a €30,000 threshold was below 70%.
conclusionsPatient-led follow-up resulted in comparable QALYs and costs relative to standard hospital-based follow-up. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a conventional willingness-to-pay threshold reached up to 70%. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patient-led models may enable tailored delivery of specialist care to patients with greatest need, alongside balanced resource utilisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41611984What 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.