The Role of Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Management of Brain Metastases From a Health-Economic Perspective: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an effective option in the management of brain metastases, offering improved overall survival to whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). However, given the need for active surveillance and the possibility of repeated interventions for local/distant brain recurrences, the balance between clinical benefit and economic impact must be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of health-economic analyses of SRS for brain metastases, compared with other existing intervention options, to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment across different clinical scenarios. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CRD, and EconLit databases were searched for health-economic analyses, according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, using terms relevant to brain metastases and radiation-based therapies. Simple cost analysis studies were excluded. Quality analysis was based on BMJ Consolidated Health Economics Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified. For lesions with limited mass effect, SRS was more cost-effective than surgical resection (6 studies). In patients with Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) >70 and good predicted survival, SRS was cost-effective compared to WBRT (7 studies); WBRT became cost-effective with poor performance status or low anticipated life span. Following SRS, routine magnetic resonance imaging surveillance saved $1326/patient compared to symptomatic imaging due to reduced surgical salvage and hospital stay (1 study). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, SRS is cost-effective in the management of brain metastases, particularly in high-functioning patients with longer expected survival. However, before an optimal care pathway can be proposed, emerging factors such as tumor molecular subtype, diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment, neuroprognostic score, tailored surveillance imaging, and patient utilities need to be studied in greater detail.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".