% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Lwin:310348,
author = {M. W. Lwin$^*$ and O. Schoffer and C. Streissnig and P.
Wimberger and M. Gerken and V. Bierbaum and C. Bobeth and M.
Rößler and P. Dröge and T. Ruhnke and C. Günster and K.
K. Tol and T. Link and A. Scharl and E. C. Sturm-Inwald and
K. Kast and T. Papathemelis and O. Ortmann and M.
Klinkhammer-Schalke and J. Schmitt and M. Schlander$^*$},
title = {{A} cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer treatment
in certified versus non-certified hospitals in {G}ermany.},
journal = {International journal of cancer},
volume = {nn},
issn = {0020-7136},
address = {Bognor Regis},
publisher = {Wiley-Liss},
reportid = {DKFZ-2026-00548},
pages = {nn},
year = {2026},
note = {#EA:C100#LA:C100# / epub},
abstract = {In Germany, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche
Krebsgesellschaft [DKG]) accredits hospitals to ensure
high-quality cancer treatment through adherence to clinical
guidelines and a multidisciplinary approach. Evidence
suggests certified hospitals (CHs) achieve better clinical
outcomes and prognoses than non-certified hospitals (NCHs).
However, additional services required for certification
incur substantial, unreimbursed costs, necessitating a
focused cost-effectiveness evaluation. This retrospective
cohort study utilized anonymized administrative routine
healthcare data from Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse, Germany's
largest statutory health insurance. The study sample
comprised 143,720 incident breast cancer (BC) patients
treated between 2009 and 2017 across both CHs and NCHs. A
health system perspective was used in this
cost-effectiveness analysis. Direct medical costs
(inpatient, outpatient, medication, and certification) were
compared between CHs and NCHs. Life-years gained (LYG) were
calculated from 5-year restricted mean survival time. The
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantified as
cost per LYG, served as the primary outcome measure,
reported in 2024 euro. Treatment in CHs significantly
improved breast cancer survival, yielding 201 LYG per 1000
patients $(95\%$ confidence interval: 185-216). Accounting
for €1.5 M in certification-related costs and marginal
direct medical costs, the total incremental cost was €1.81
M per 1000 patients. This resulted in an ICER of €9036 per
LYG. Despite the financial investment required for DKG
certification, BC treatment in CHs provided significant
survival benefits at a reasonable incremental cost,
reinforcing the clinical and economic value. These findings
offer critical insights for hospital authorities and
healthcare policymakers, supporting the continued investment
in certification.},
keywords = {breast cancer (Other) / breast cancer treatment cost
(Other) / cancer center certification (Other) / certified
hospitals (Other) / cost‐effectiveness analysis (Other)},
cin = {C100},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C100-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:41802986},
doi = {10.1002/ijc.70388},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/310348},
}