ArticleBMC health services research2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of radiotherapy versus surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China: a Markov model study based on real-world data.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies on cost-effectiveness analysis of esophageal cancer are relatively common. However, there are few cost-effectiveness analyses that take a comparative approach between radiotherapy and surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). A cost-effectiveness Markov model was constructed to explore the relationship between the benefits and costs of radiotherapy versus surgery for ESCC in China.
methodsAccording to the observational data (patients’ medical records), 196 patients with ESCC enrolled for data were classified into surgery and radiotherapy two groups, both groups received preoperative and postoperative chemoimmunotherapy. A Markov model was constructed using TreeAge Pro Healthcare software to simulate the diseases progression after treatment. The model cost parameters were derived from the average treatment expenditures by real-world patients. The survival formula, fitted to real-world patient data in R, was used to calculate model transition probabilities. The utility value parameters were obtained by reviewing literature. Base-case, one-way deterministic sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The results were evaluated against willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatments.
resultsAmong 196 patients (131 males; 114 surgery group), median overall survival was 41.3 vs. 30.4 months and progression-free survival 28.0 vs. 20.6 months for surgery versus radiotherapy groups. Compared to radiotherapy, surgery had an incremental cost of 411,574.32 US dollars (USD), an incremental utility of 11.85 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 34,744.52 USD/QALY, reaching 90% of the upper bound of WTP (three times the gross domestic product [GDP] per capita in China). One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that the costs of adverse event management and immunotherapy were key drivers affecting the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a WTP of 12,741.11 USD/QALY and 38,223.34 USD/QALY (1 to 3 times China’s per capita GDP), the probability of surgery being cost-effective was 10.1% and 62.5%, respectively. At a WTP of 33,080.09 USD/QALY, the probability was equal.
conclusionsIn China, Surgery was marginally cost-effective compared to radiotherapy for ESCC. WTP thresholds, adverse reactions costs and immunotherapy costs constituted the primary factors influencing health economic evaluation outcomes in ESCC surgery versus radiotherapy.
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.