The Technique, Resources and Costs of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic system has been used for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of prostate cancer. Arc-based and fixed-gantry systems are used for hypofractionated regimens (10-20 fractions) and the standard regimen (39 fractions); they may also be used to deliver SBRT. Studies are currently underway to compare efficacy and safety of these systems and regimens. Thus, we describe the technique and required resources for the provision of robotic SBRT in relation to the standard regimen and other systems to guide investment decisions. Using administrative data of resource volumes and unit prices, we computed the cost per patient, cost per cure and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of four regimens (5, 12, 20 and 39 fractions) and three delivery systems (robotic, arc-based and fixed-gantry) from a payer's perspective. We performed sensitivity analyses to examine the effects of daily hours of operation and in-room treatment delivery times on cost per patient. In addition, we estimated the budget impact when a robotic system is preferred over an arc-based or fixed-gantry system. Costs of SBRT were $6333/patient (robotic), $4368/patient (arc-based) and $4443/patient (fixed-gantry). When daily hours of operation were varied, the cost of robotic SBRT varied from $9324/patient (2 hours daily) to $5250/patient (10 hours daily). This was comparable to the costs of 39 fraction standard regimen which were $5935/patient (arc-based) and $7992/ patient (fixed-gantry). In settings of moderate to high patient volume, robotic SBRT is cost effective compared to the standard regimen. If SBRT can be delivered with equivalent efficacy and safety, the arc-based system would be the most cost effective system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".