ArticleCancer medicine2023
Determining patients with spinal metastases suitable for surgical intervention: A cost-effective analysis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomics in spinal research: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Integrated management of metastatic spinal tumors: current status and future directions.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Determining patients with spinal metastases suitable for surgical intervention: A cost-effective analysis.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth nonoperative and operative treatments for spinal metastasis are expensive interventions. Patients' expected 3-month survival is believed to be a key factor to determine the most suitable treatment. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study lends support to the hypothesis. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of operative and nonoperative interventions, stratified by patients' predicted probability of 3-month survival.
methodsA Markov model with four defined health states was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for operative intervention with postoperative radiotherapy and radiotherapy alone (palliative low-dose external beam radiotherapy) of spine metastases. Transition probabilities for the model, including the risks of mortality and functional deterioration, were obtained from secondary and our institutional data. Willingness to pay thresholds were prespecified at $100,000 and $150,000. The analyses were censored after 5-year simulation from a health system perspective and discounted outcomes at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the study design.
resultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $140,907 per QALY for patients with a 3-month survival probability >50%, $3,178,510 per QALY for patients with a 3-month survival probability <50%, and $168,385 per QALY for patients with independent ambulatory and 3-month survival probability >50%.
conclusionsThis study emphasizes the need to choose patients carefully and estimate preoperative survival for those with spinal metastases. In addition to reaffirming previous research regarding the influence of ambulatory status on cost-effectiveness, our study goes a step further by highlighting that operative intervention with postoperative radiotherapy could be more cost-effective than radiotherapy alone for patients with a better survival outlook. Accurate survival prediction tools and larger future studies could offer more detailed insights for clinical decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.