SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2026
Global economic differences in modern glioblastoma care - a systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGlioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive form of primary brain cancer and is associated with poor overall survival and expensive, resource intensive treatments. We performed a systematic literature review to quantify the costs and cost-effectiveness of modern glioblastoma care across global healthcare systems.
methodsA comprehensive literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the search string (Glioblastoma OR GBM) AND (costs OR cost-effectiveness OR economic burden) identified 21 studies eligible for our research question. Costs were reviewed for all treatment modalities of the current Stupp protocol. After considering the current consumer price indexes and purchasing power parities, these were then standardized to the value of US Dollars ($) in 2024.
resultsA total of 15,547 real world GBM patients were analyzed. Direct medical costs displayed extreme heterogeneity, ranging from cumulative costs of $356,481 in the United States to approximately $18,908 in India. The Stupp protocol exceeded willingness-to-pay thresholds in middle income economies. Economic evaluations of Tumor treating fields revealed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) ranging from $862,361.37 to $940,344.39 per Life Year Gained (LYG) in France to $252,590.08 per LYG in the United States, and a more favorable per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) of $45,813.91 in China.
conclusionThe cost of modern GBM treatment varies greatly between the analyzed countries with adjuvant treatment and inpatient care being the most important cost drivers in western countries in the direct medical costs analyses. Cost models show that the Stupp protocol remains a significant financial burden in resource-limited settings, underlining the cost-effectiveness of surgery in modern GBM management. There is, however, a need for uniform cost reporting to correctly assess cost-effectiveness across global healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.