Coverage with evidence development program on stereotactic body radiotherapy in Belgium (2013–2019): a nationwide registry-based prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was progressively adopted in clinical practice in Belgium, a reimbursement request in 2011 was not granted because of remaining clinical and economic uncertainty. A coverage with evidence development (CED) program on SBRT started in 2013, with the aim to assess clinical and technical patterns-of-care in Belgium and monitor survival per indication, in view of supporting inclusion in the reimbursement system. Methods: The Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) initiated this prospective observational registry. Participating departments, using SBRT in clinical practice, signed the 'NIHDI convention'. Eligible patients had a primary tumour (PT) or oligometastatic disease (OMD). Patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics were collected through an online module of the Belgian Cancer Registry, prerequisite for financing. Five-year overall survival (5YOS) and 30- and 90-days mortality were primary outcomes, derived from vital status information. Findings: Between 10/2013 and 12/2019, 20 of the 24 accredited radiotherapy departments participated, 6 were academic. Registered cases per department ranged from 21 to 867. Of 5675 registrations analysed, the majority had good performance status and limited number of lesions. Enrolment of PTs remained stable over time, OMDs almost doubled. Peripheral lung lesions dominated in PTs as in OMDs. Other metastases were (para)spinal, 'non-standard' and hepatic. Thirty- and 90-days mortalities remained below 0.5% [95% CI 0.3%-0.8%] respectively 2.1% [95% CI 1.6%-2.7%]. 5YOS varied by indication, primary prostate patients performing best (85%, 95% CI [76%, 96%]), those with liver metastases worst (19%, 95% CI [15%, 24%]). Better OS was observed in academic departments, department size did not significantly impact survival. OMD survival was better in 2018-19. Interpretation: CED can be used to define patterns-of-care and real-life outcome of innovative radiotherapy. As the observed survival for different indications was in line with outcome in emerging literature, SBRT was included in the Belgian reimbursement system as of January 2020. Funding: NIHDI financed participating departments per registered case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".