CMET-05. HEALTH-ECONOMIC ANALYSES OF RADIOTHERAPY FOR PATIENTS WITH BRAIN METASTASES: CAN ECONOMICS GUIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PATIENT CARE PATHWAYS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment options for brain metastases include whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotaxic radiosurgery (SRS), and surgical resection followed by adjuvant therapy. Although SRS provides similar survival benefits and poses less morbidity-related costs than WBRT, it may predispose patients to higher recurrence risk and later utilization of salvage therapies. In today’s limited spending climate, it is critical to find the most medically sound and economical uses for these therapies. We conducted a critical literature review, searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CRD, and EconLit databases using keywords pertaining to brain metastases, radiotherapy, and health economic evaluations, without limits on publication date or language. 12 studies were identified (nine American, one German, one Vietnamese, and one Taiwanese). Six used modelling but only one applied discounting. Survival with SRS was at least equivalent to surgical resection and WBRT. SRS – even with salvage therapy and routine MRI surveillance – was more cost-effective than surgical resection and WBRT. For patients expected to survive longer, between 12–24 months, SRS combined with hippocampal-sparing WBRT (ICER $80,253) or hippocampal-sparing WBRT alone (ICER $24,701) were cost-effective compared to surgical resection and WBRT. For tumors not amenable to SRS, surgical resection with intra-operative brachytherapy was more cost-effective than surgery followed by SRS ($19,271/QALY vs. $44,219/QALY). Though further modelling work is needed, we propose the following cost-effective pathway: tumors smaller than 3cm may be managed by SRS with MRI surveillance every three months and salvage therapy (SRS or WBRT) on evidence of recurrence. Hippocampal-sparing WBRT could serve as a valuable adjuvant therapy in patients surviving longer than 12 months. Tumors larger than 3cm or not amenable to SRS could be surgically resected with intraoperative brachytherapy or cavity SRS, followed by routine MRI surveillance every three months and additional salvage therapy (SRS or WBRT) on evidence of recurrence.
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 | 0.019 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.248 | 0.027 |
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".