与基于社区的运动干预相比，癌症幸存者的心脏肿瘤康复模型显示出更好的结果。然而，其成本效益仍然存在问题。 在心血管风险较高的癌症幸存者中，评估以中心为基础的心脏康复 (CBCR) 计划与包括基于社区的运动训练 (CBET) 的常规护理相比的成本效益.CORE研究是一项单中心、前瞻性、随机对照试验； 80 名既往接受过心脏毒性癌症治疗和/或患有心血管疾病的成年癌症幸存者被分配（1:1 比例）接受为期 8 周的 CBCR 或 CBET，每周两次。成本效益是预先指定的次要终点。结果包括医疗保健资源的使用和成本、质量调整生命年 (QALY) 和成本效益；增量成本效益比（ICER）是从社会角度计算的。75 名患者完成了研究（CBCR N=38；CBET N=37）。与 CBET 组 (339.32 ± 53.88 欧元) 相比，CBCR 每位患者的成本 (477.76 ± 39.08 欧元) 显着更高，组间差异显着 138.44 欧元 (95%CI，116.82 至 160.05 欧元，p<0.01)。观察到 QALY 的组间差异为 0.100 分，有利于 CBCR（95%CI，-0.163 至 -0.037，p=0.002）。当 CBCR 与 CBET 进行比较时，每获得 QALY，ICER 为 1,383.24 欧元；在每 QALY 5,000 欧元的支付意愿门槛下，CBCR 具有成本效益的概率为 99.9%（95% CI，99.4 至 100.0）。CORE 试验表明，CBCR 是一种具有成本效益的干预措施管理具有高心血管风险的癌症幸存者，强化了这种多学科方法在支持性护理这一特定癌症患者亚群中的潜在益处。© 作者 2024。由牛津大学出版社代表欧洲心脏病学会出版。版权所有。如需商业重复使用，请联系 reprints@oup.com 获取转载和转载的翻译权。所有其他权限都可以通过我们网站文章页面上的权限链接通过我们的 RightsLink 服务获得 - 如需更多信息，请联系journals.permissions@oup.com。

A cardio-oncology rehabilitation model among cancer survivors showed superior results comparing to a community-based exercise intervention. However, questions remain about its cost-effectiveness.To assess the cost-effectiveness of a center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) program when compared to usual care encompassing a community-based exercise training (CBET), among cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk.The CORE study was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial; 80 adult cancer survivors with previous exposure to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or with previous cardiovascular disease were assigned (1:1 ratio) to an 8-week CBCR or CBET, twice/week. Cost-effectiveness was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Outcomes included healthcare resource use and costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed from a societal perspective.75 patients completed the study (CBCR N=38; CBET N=37). The CBCR had significantly higher cost per patient (477.76 ± 39.08€) compared to CBET group (339.32 ± 53.88€), with a significant between-group difference 138.44€ (95% CI, 116.82 to 160.05€, p<0.01). A between-group difference by 0.100 points in QALYs was observed, favouring the CBCR (95% CI, -0.163 to -0.037, p=0.002). When CBCR was compared with CBET, the ICER was €1,383.24 per QALY gained; at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €5,000 per QALY, the probability of CBCR being cost-effective was 99.9% (95% CI, 99.4 to 100.0).The CORE trial shows that a CBCR is a cost-effective intervention in the management of cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk, reinforcing the potential benefits of this multidisciplinary approach in supportive care of this specific subset of cancer patients.© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.