ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of upfront HA-WBRT vs. SRS for treatment of brain metastases due to SCLC.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHippocampal-avoidant whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT) and stereotactic radio surgery (SRS) are standard of care treatments for brain metastases (BM). However, the optimal approach for treating BM originating from small cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains uncertain. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing HA-WBRT and SRS for SCLC BMs.
methodsWe constructed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SRS versus HA-WBRT. In this model, patients either receive upfront SRS or HA-WBRT. Those receiving SRS may undergo salvage HA-WBRT if they experience salvageable distant recurrences, or progress to non-salvageable local and distant recurrences. We performed over 100,000 Monte Carlo simulations, varying cost and utility parameters using Beta distributions, to analyze the impact of these variations on the ICER.
resultsThe base case ICER for SRS was $2126.88. SRS was more costly and more/less effective in 56.1%/43.9% of Monte Carlo simulations. MRI cost had the greatest positive impact on ICER, and cost of hospice had greatest negative impact. The utility decline of the four-month of neurocognitive decline post-HA-WBRT had the strongest negative impact. The transition probabilities of the controlled state, death, distant recurrence (salvageable), and local recurrence (non-salvageable) had statistically significant impacts on ICER (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: SRS was more expensive than HA-WBRT in all simulations and more effective in most. The cost of the MRI and hospice care and the transition probabilities of the controlled state and death had the greatest influence on ICER. As survival increased, ICER decreased, emphasizing the importance of patient selection for SRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42101701What 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.