ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of chemoradiotherapy compared to surgery in patients with stage I esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Japan.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of surgical treatment (ST) versus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for stage I esophageal cancer in Japan. MATERIALS AND
methodsA model for partitioned survival analysis was developed to estimate the long-term medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients who had received either ST or CRT. Data on survival times were taken from the JCOG0502 trial. Utility values were estimated by applying a mapping algorithm based on Japanese data from the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. From the perspective of public healthcare, only direct medical costs were considered. A discount rate of 2% per year was applied to long-term costs and QALYs to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CRT compared to ST.
resultsThe incremental cost of CRT versus ST was estimated to be $26,313 (USD), the incremental QALY was 0.630, and the ICER was $41,742/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that the parameter with a relatively large effect on the ICER was the utility weight of progressive disease with esophagus preserved patients in CRT. The variations in ICERs ranged from approximately $37,113/QALY to $47,690/QALY. With willingness-to-pay thresholds ranging from $50,000/QALY to $100,000/QALY, CRT was more cost-effective than ST, with the probability of being cost-effective estimated to range from 59.3% to 76.3%.
conclusionsIn Japan, CRT for stage I esophageal cancer may be more cost-effective than ST, if the acceptable ICER is $50,000/QALY.
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.