ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer based on TNM stage: a Markov model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) show comparable short- and long-term efficacy for treating locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC), evidence on the cost-effectiveness of LDG versus ODG remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of LDG versus ODG in patients with LAGC at different stages from a societal perspective in China.
methodsA Markov model incorporating three health states (stable disease, disease progression, and death) was constructed based on data from the CLASS-01 trial. The outcome measures included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was assessed by comparing the ICER to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty.
resultsIn stage I patients, the model projected that LDG provided 0.29 incremental QALYs at an incremental cost of $819.33, yielding an ICER of $2829.98/QALY-below the WTP threshold, indicating potential cost-effectiveness conditional on the model parameters. Conversely, in stage II and III patients, ODG was associated with higher QALY gains than LDG (simulated incremental QALYs of - 0.14 and - 0.22, respectively), and the ICERs were negative (stage II: ICER - $7692.45 per QALY, incremental cost $1073.62; stage III: ICER - $4232 per QALY, incremental cost $913.41), suggesting that ODG was the cost-effective strategy within the simulation framework. Sensitivity analyses indicated that base-case findings were robust to parameter uncertainty.
conclusionBased on the model's assumptions and parameterization, the simulated results indicate that LDG is likely cost-effective in stage I patients, while ODG appears more advantageous in stage II and III patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41792488What 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.