Trial reportThe British journal of surgery2026
Economic evaluation of lymphaticovenous anastomosis versus conservative therapy for breast cancer-related lymphoedema: secondary outcome analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The British journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02790021 (Improving the Quality of Life of Patients With Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema by Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis), which is not on this 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.
Improving the Quality of Life of Patients With Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema by Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis (LVA): A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) is an increasingly applied microsurgical option for lymphoedema. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LVA combined with complex decongestive therapy (CDT) versus CDT alone for breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL).
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as a pre-specified secondary outcome of an RCT comparing LVA combined with CDT versus CDT alone. The primary outcome of the trial was health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon was adopted. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the EuroQol five-dimension, five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping and sensitivity analysis. Data were collected from four Dutch hospitals. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsOne hundred female patients were included (mean age 58.5 years). Over 2 years, mean total costs were €16 234 (LVA) versus €14 293 (CDT); adjusted mean difference €78 (95% c.i. -€6044 to €6200). Mean(s.e.) QALYs were 1.636(0.003) (LVA) versus 1.579(0.002) (CDT); adjusted mean difference 0.045 (95% c.i. -0.021 to 0.112). The ICER from a societal perspective was €1716/QALY, with probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 0.60 and 0.71 at the €20 000 and €50 000 willingness-to-pay thresholds respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the ICER was €59 679/QALY, with probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 0.08 and 0.42 at the same thresholds respectively.
conclusionLVA combined with CDT was more costly than CDT alone, but societal costs were limited during the 2-year follow-up interval. The LVA group acquired slightly more QALYs. From a societal perspective, LVA combined with CDT has the potential to be cost-effective, particularly when performed under local anaesthesia. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02790021 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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.