Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42897317›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026

Cost Analysis of Percutaneous Segmentectomy Versus Chemoembolisation and Radioembolisation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Multicentre Cohort Study.

Pierleone Lucatelli, Laura Crocetti, Renato Argirò, Roberto Iezzi, Chiara Reale, Valeria Grillo, Tetyana Shchipska, Alessandro Maresca, Marcello Lippi, Elena Bozzi and 12 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Pierleone LucatelliVascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Radiological Oncological and Anatomo-Pathological Sciences, AOU Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
Laura CrocettiDivision of Interventional Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Renato ArgiròInterventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Roberto IezziAdvanced Interventional Radiology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Chiara RealeDipartimento Salute Pubblica e Malattie Infettive Facoltà di Farmacia e Medicina, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Valeria GrilloDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Tetyana ShchipskaDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro MarescaAdvanced Interventional Radiology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Marcello LippiAdvanced Interventional Radiology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Elena BozziDivision of Interventional Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Roberto CioniDivision of Interventional Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Matteo MadonnaInterventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Marta PignataroInterventional Radiology Unit, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Mario CoronaVascular and Interventional Radiology Unit, Department of Radiological Oncological and Anatomo-Pathological Sciences, AOU Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Carlo CatalanoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Andrea GallivanoneDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele,Milan, Italy.
Nicolò SchiesaroDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele,Milan, Italy.
Agnese BoninoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele,Milan, Italy.
Vittorio PediciniDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Andrea LaghiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele,Milan, Italy.
Ezio LanzaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele,Milan, Italy. eziolanza@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1889-8798

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the costs of percutaneous segmentectomy, a single-session combination of transarterial embolisation and microwave ablation, against chemoembolisation and radioembolisation for hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND

methodsRetrospective cost analysis of 66 patients treated with percutaneous segmentectomy at five Italian centres, using bottom-up micro-costing. Comparator costs were derived from published Italian per-session costs multiplied by mean sessions per patient, and survival from published curves. A partitioned survival model estimated life-years and incremental net monetary benefit at 50,000 euros per life-year.

resultsProcedural cost per treated patient was 6331 euros for percutaneous segmentectomy, 9792 euros for chemoembolisation (mean 2.94 sessions), and 21,673 euros for radioembolisation (1.52 sessions). At 24 months, percutaneous segmentectomy had lower total cost and a small life-year deficit (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio approximately 70,800 euros per life-year versus chemoembolisation and 57,500 versus radioembolisation, both above threshold). This life-year-adjusted advantage reversed versus chemoembolisation, and became neutral versus radioembolisation, in a worst-case sensitivity analysis, and reversed against both when transplantation costs for the eight transplanted patients (19%) were attributed to percutaneous segmentectomy alone.

conclusionIn this exploratory analysis, percutaneous segmentectomy appeared to have a lower procedural cost per treated patient than chemoembolisation and radioembolisation, mainly because it is delivered in a single session. However, because costing routes, cohorts, and survival sources were not equivalent and the life-year-adjusted comparison was not robust, no formal cost superiority can be established. These hypothesis-generating findings require confirmation in prospective, matched studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, Retrospective Cohort Study with Historical Comparators.

Indexed as

AblationChemoembolisationCost analysisEmbolisationLiver cancerRadioembolisation

Identifiers

PMID42897317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.