Is SABR cost-effective in oligometastatic cancer? An economic analysis of SABR-COMET randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phase II randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in cancer patients with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) was associated with an improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared to standard of care (SoC). SABR, however, is associated with higher costs and treatment-related toxicity. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in patients with oligometastatic disease.\nA time-dependent Markov model with five health states was constructed from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from the SABR-COMET trial. Costs were obtained from the published literature. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality adjusted life year (QALY) was used.\nSABR was cost-effective in the base case, at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $37,157/ QALY gained over a lifetime horizon, as compared to the SoC. Therefore, administering SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions compared to SoC.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".