ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
A cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer treatment in certified versus non-certified hospitals in Germany.
Article in International journal of cancer, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In Germany, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft [DKG]) accredits hospitals to ensure high-quality cancer treatment through adherence to clinical guidelines and a multidisciplinary approach. Evidence suggests certified hospitals (CHs) achieve better clinical outcomes and prognoses than non-certified hospitals (NCHs). However, additional services required for certification incur substantial, unreimbursed costs, necessitating a focused cost-effectiveness evaluation. This retrospective cohort study utilized anonymized administrative routine healthcare data from Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse, Germany's largest statutory health insurance. The study sample comprised 143,720 incident breast cancer (BC) patients treated between 2009 and 2017 across both CHs and NCHs. A health system perspective was used in this cost-effectiveness analysis. Direct medical costs (inpatient, outpatient, medication, and certification) were compared between CHs and NCHs. Life-years gained (LYG) were calculated from 5-year restricted mean survival time. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantified as cost per LYG, served as the primary outcome measure, reported in 2024 euro. Treatment in CHs significantly improved breast cancer survival, yielding 201 LYG per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval: 185-216). Accounting for €1.5 M in certification-related costs and marginal direct medical costs, the total incremental cost was €1.81 M per 1000 patients. This resulted in an ICER of €9036 per LYG. Despite the financial investment required for DKG certification, BC treatment in CHs provided significant survival benefits at a reasonable incremental cost, reinforcing the clinical and economic value. These findings offer critical insights for hospital authorities and healthcare policymakers, supporting the continued investment in certification.
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.