MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2594817066 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.969.969

Combined Modality Therapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone As an Induction Regimen for Primary CNS Lymphoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2012· article· en· W2594817066 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Anca Prica, Kelvin Chan, Matthew C. Cheung

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicinePrimary central nervous system lymphomaOncologyInduction chemotherapyChemotherapyRegimenChemotherapy regimenCost effectivenessSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 969 Background: Induction therapy for non-HIV, primary CNS lymphoma is centered on high-dose methotrexate (MTX) as the most effective chemotherapeutic agent. Combined modality therapy (CMT) using high-dose MTX and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) has improved response rates compared to chemotherapy alone. The trade-off is a significant risk of delayed, treatment-related neurotoxicity (NT), leading to significant morbidity and mortality. This risk of NT is greater in patients over the age of 60. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the two strategies and stratified the analysis by age. Our analyses compared quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) with these two strategies. Methods: We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to compare CMT versus chemotherapy alone for a hypothetical cohort of 60 year old patients newly-diagnosed with primary CNS lymphoma. We age-stratified the model to evaluate cohorts of patients <60 and >60 years of age. The model simulates the clinical course of patients over a 5 year time horizon, with the end-points of QALY and ICER. The baseline probabilities used in the model were derived from a systematic review of published studies. Key variables included response, relapse and survival rates with CMT vs. chemotherapy alone, risk of developing NT with each strategy, including severe NT, and the estimated survival once NT develops. The model incorporated data on health state utilities, which were derived from a survey of expert physicians who treat patients with primary CNS lymphoma. Direct and lost productivity costs were collected from a Canadian perspective. Resource utilization was based on guidelines, literature and expert opinion. Cost information was obtained from hospital, provincial and national costing sources, as well as the literature, and presented in 2011 Canadian dollars. Both costs and effects were discounted at 5%. All patients who received chemotherapy alone as induction therapy were assumed to have received salvage radiotherapy upon relapse. The utility of having active disease was assumed to dominate any ill effects from neurotoxicity. The cost of living with neurotoxicity was assumed to be similar to living with Alzheimer's dementia of comparable severity. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Results: The quality-adjusted life expectancy was 1.55 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for CMT and 1.53 QALYs for chemotherapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case CMT vs. chemotherapy alone was $491,522 per life year gained (LYG). In younger patients <60 years of age, CMT yielded a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 2.44 QALYs, compared to 1.89 QALYs for chemotherapy alone, yielding an expected benefit with CMT of 0.55 QALYs or 6.6 quality-adjusted months. The CMT strategy dominates in younger patients as it is $11,951 less expensive than chemotherapy alone. There was no difference in QALYs between the strategies in the older group. The chemotherapy alone strategy dominates in older patients as it is $11,244 less expensive than CMT. The model was robust to key variables for the younger group. For younger patients, there were no threshold values for cost of CMT, cost of managing severe NT when in CR, and cost of palliation, which would potentially lead to chemotherapy alone being favoured. As well, the model was robust to the plausible ranges in probability of developing NT (base probability: 0.18 at 1yr). It favoured treating younger patients with CMT unless the rate of neurotoxicity was more than 89% at 1yr, a rate not encountered in the published literature. Similarly, for older patients, there were no threshold values for the costs above which lead to CMT being favoured. Conclusion: The preferred induction strategy for younger patients with primary CNS lymphoma appears to be CMT. This strategy minimizes cost, while maximizing life expectancy, and quality adjusted life years. This analysis confirms that the preferred strategy for older patients is chemotherapy alone. The model was robust in sensitivity analyses of key variables tested through the plausible ranges obtained from costing sources and the published literature. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,008
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207