Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Biopsy in Advance of Ablation with Concurrent Biopsy and Ablation for Small Renal Masses Measuring 1–3 cm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the cost effectiveness of performing a renal mass biopsy in advance of ablation or concurrently with a percutaneous ablation procedure for the management of small renal masses (SRMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed with a cohort of 65-year-old male patients with an incidental, unilateral 1-3 cm SRM. A decision tree modeled the first year of clinical intervention, after which patients entered a Markov model with a lifetime horizon. Patients were assumed to be treated in accordance with established clinical practice guidelines, including surveillance, repeat ablation for recurrence, and systemic therapy for metastasis. Healthcare cost and utility values were determined from published literature or local hospital estimates, discounted at 1.5%. Total lifetime costs were calculated from the perspective of a Canadian healthcare payer and converted to 2022 Canadian dollars (C$). The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The secondary outcome was ICER at a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000 per life year (LY) gained. RESULTS: Concurrent biopsy and ablation resulted in a gain of 16.4 quality-adjusted days, at an incremental cost of $386, with an ICER of C$8,494/QALY. The concurrent strategy was the dominant strategy for a prevalence of benign mass of <5%. Sequential biopsy and ablation was only cost-effective when LYs were not quality-adjusted and ablation cost was >C$4,300 or benign mass prevalence was >28%. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent biopsy and ablation is cost-effective relative to pretreatment diagnostic biopsy for management of incidental SRMs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".