Docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide is cost-effective compared to doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, based on an economic analysis of US oncology trial 9735: additional rationale to avoid anthracyclines in the adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer?.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract #6105 Background: Extended 7-year follow-up of the US Oncology Adjuvant Trial 9735 demonstrated that docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) as adjuvant treatment of operable invasive breast cancer significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC). DFS was 81% vs. 75%, respectively (p = 0.033) and OS was 87% vs. 82%, respectively (p = 0.032). A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of TC versus AC was conducted from a Canadian (province of Ontario) government payer perspective, based on head-to-head clinical data from Trial 9735. Methods: Survival and monthly risk of disease recurrence of women with early stage breast cancer (base case typifying those entered into the trial) was estimated up to 7 years using OS and DFS data from Trial 9735. Survival was extrapolated to lifetime using life expectancy estimates from the Canadian general population. Canadian resource utilization and unit costs were applied to estimate the costs of chemotherapy (including drug and administration costs), chemotherapy-related toxicities and disease recurrence. Quality of life (utility) weights for health states and events, used in the calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were derived from the literature. Total costs, life years and QALYs were calculated for a lifetime horizon. Results: Life years and QALYs were higher for TC patients compared to AC patients, due primarily to longer survival and fewer recurrences for patients receiving TC. The predicted life expectancy of patients receiving TC and AC was 14.64 and 14.02 years, respectively. Mean total lifetime disease-related costs were $12,840 with TC and $8,579 with AC; the difference in costs was driven by higher drug acquisition costs for TC. Cost per life year gained (TC vs. AC) was $6,842 and cost per QALY gained was $8,251, discounting costs and outcomes at 5% per year. Base case results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding time horizon. In a sensitivity analysis conducted with a 7-year time horizon (the time frame of the clinical trial), cost per life year gained was $36,120 and cost per QALY gained was $43,248. In additional one-way sensitivity analyses conducted with a lifetime horizon and alternative assumptions regarding survival extrapolation, utility estimates, costs and discount rate, cost per life year gained remained between $2,982 and $7,538 and cost per QALY gained remained between $3,600 and $9,090. Conclusion: In patients with early stage, operable, invasive breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with TC provides gains in terms of life years and QALYs compared to AC and results in favourable cost-effectiveness ratios that should be acceptable in most jurisdictions. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6105.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».