Lundkvist et al 2005
Cancer · 2005 · Sweden · Proton
The figures it reported
- cost saving dominant (€23,600 cost saving and +0.68 QALY per patient)base case, 5-year-old children with medulloblastomaDominant: cheaper and more effective than the comparator, so there is no ratio to quote.
Figures are shown exactly as the paper gives them, in its own currency and price year. We do not convert between currencies: see the glossary for why.
- Patients modelled or enrolled
- Hypothetical cohort of children aged 5 years with medulloblastoma
- Comparator
- Conventional radiation therapy
- Indication
- Medulloblastoma (childhood)
- Study design
- Cost-utility analysis; Markov simulation model; outcome measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)
- Time horizon
- Simulated from diagnosis until death or until age 100 years
- Delivery technique
- not reported by this study
- Perspective
- societal
- Currency
- EUR (Euro)
- Price year
- Euro 2002 value
- Willingness-to-pay threshold
- not reported by this study
- Discount rate
- 3% annually for costs and effects
- Cost of the particle course assumed
- not reported by this study
- Cost of the comparator assumed
- not reported by this study
Whose costs were counted: a payer, a hospital, or society as a whole.
The year the costs are expressed in. Without it, a figure cannot be compared across time.
The condition attached to the finding
Conclusion that proton therapy can be cost-effective and cost-saving applies if appropriate patients are selected for therapy.
Reporting quality
89 out of 100 on the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument, a 16-item checklist covering the objective, the perspective, the sources of each estimate, the handling of uncertainty, the horizon and discounting, how costs were measured, the model's transparency, the discussion of bias, and whether funding was disclosed. It measures how well the study was reported, not whether its conclusion is correct: a well-reported study can still reach a conclusion a later trial overturns.