ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Cost Modeling of Out-of-Pocket Costs for External Beam Radiation Therapy Versus Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Metastatic Spine Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 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
purposeThe choice between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for spine metastases depends on several factors: tumor size, tumor location, patient health, prognosis, other treatments (i.e., surgery, minimally invasive procedures, systemic therapy, and supportive care), and treatment goals. Limited evidence exists on insurance's influence on out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses across radiation modalities. This study assesses costs across various insurance plans, including original Medicare and Medicaid. METHODS AND MATERIALS: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines for symptomatic metastatic spine cancer were used. OOP costs (not adjusted for inflation) were calculated using deductibles, treatment costs, and copays across three public insurance plans-Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicaid-over a two-year period for treatments provided in an Ohio hospital. EBRT was defined as one fraction (8 Gray (Gy) x 1), five fractions (4 Gy x 5), or ten fractions (3 Gy x 10). SBRT was defined as one fraction (16-24 Gy x 1), two fractions (24 Gy x 2), three fractions (24-30 Gy x3), four fractions (26-32 Gy x 4), and five fractions (30-40 Gy x5).
resultsMedicare beneficiaries with Original Medicare face OOP costs: $807.01, $871.51, and $961.09 for EBRT one fraction, five fractions, and ten fractions, respectively, after two years. Medicare beneficiaries face charges: $1,127.03, $1,444.92, $1,762.82, $2,398.60, and $2,398.60 for SBRT 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 fractions, respectively. Under Medigap Part G, patients are responsible only for the annual deductible of $240 (2024), facing a total charge of $480 after two years, regardless of radiation modality and fractionation. Medicaid beneficiaries face no OOP expenses as all expenses are covered with no cap, regardless of treatment option. Under Original Medicare plans, beneficiaries face an OOP cost of 20% (for treatment covered under Part B) of the approved claims charges after the annual $240 deductible is met.
conclusionsSBRT has higher out-of-pocket costs than EBRT for metastatic spine cancer, depending on the fractionation schedule. These findings highlight the need for strategies to reduce financial toxicity in cancer care.
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.