MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980978866 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-110649

Cost of Care at NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers Vs. Other Treatment Sites for Young Adults with Newly-Diagnosed Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

2018· article· en· W2980978866 sur OpenAlexaff
Julie Wolfson, Smita Bhatia, Jill P. Ginsberg, Laura Becker, David Bernstein, Henry J. Henk, Gary H. Lyman, Paul C. Nathan, Diane Puccetti, Jennifer J. Wilkes, Lena E. Winestone, Kelly Kenzik

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCancerConfidence intervalCensoring (clinical trials)CohortComorbidityInternal medicineDemography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Young adults (22-39y) with ALL treated at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) have a superior survival when compared with those treated at a non-CCC site. (Wolfson et al, CEBP, 2017) Despite superior outcomes, specialized cancer centers (such as CCC) have been generally criticized for a higher cost of cancer care (Nardi et al, JNCCN, 2016). However, the magnitude of difference in cost of care for ALL patients by treatment site has not been explored. Here we examine cost of cancer care at CCC and non-CCC sites in YA with ALL. Methods: Using commercial insurance data (OptumLabs® Data Warehouse), we established a cohort of 309 patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014, at age 22y to 39y. Patients were included if they had ≥30 days of continuous insurance enrollment after ALL diagnosis, were treated with chemotherapy, and were followed from diagnosis until 3y, disenrollment, or 3/31/2017, whichever came first. Patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant were not included in the current analyses. Primary outcomes included total monthly medical costs paid by: (1) health plan; (2) patient (out-of-pocket [OOP] costs). The primary predictor of interest was the classification of the facility where the patient received cancer-related treatment, as NCI-designated CCC vs. non-CCC. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, education, comorbidity, year of diagnosis and radiation therapy. Monthly costs were modeled using generalized linear models with log link (gamma distribution); bootstrapping obtained 95% confidence intervals (CI). To accommodate censoring, each one-month cost was weighted by the inverse probability of not being censored. Adjusting for covariates, average costs were estimated by CCC status at each monthly interval. Monthly costs were summed over the 36-month study period, and adjusted at the claim-line level to reflect 2016 pricing. Results: Patients were diagnosed at a median age of 32y (range 22-39); 53% of the cohort was male, 46% non-Hispanic white, 42% had some college education or higher, and 70% had an annual household income of ≥$50,000. Following diagnosis, patients were enrolled in the insurance plan for a median 753 days after ALL diagnosis (34 to 4,899 days). Half of the cohort (n=153, 49.5%) was not treated at a CCC. There was no difference between CCC and non-CCC patients with respect to age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, or length of follow-up. A greater proportion of patients received radiation at CCC vs. non-CCC (23% vs 13% p=0.02). Costs Paid byHealth Plan: The average unadjusted mean 3y costs paid by the health plan per person (HPP) were $540,822/patient for CCC patients vs. $210,075/patient for non-CCC patients (p<0.001). The average adjusted mean 3y HPP costs were almost 3 times higher for patients treated in CCC vs. non-CCC patients ($782,438/patient vs. $288,359/patient; p<0.001). HPP costs were highest for all patients within the first 12 months (CCC: $469,190/patient; non-CCC: $200,049/patient; p<0.001 [Fig 1]), consistent with the fact that ALL treatment regimens include a more intense first 12 months followed by a longer maintenance phase that relies mostly on oral chemotherapy. OOP CostsPaid by Patient: Unadjusted average 3y mean OOP costs per patient were $9,869 in CCC patients and $5,976 in non-CCC patients (p<0.001). The average adjusted mean OOP costs per patient were 1.7 times higher in CCC as compared to non-CCC patients ($14,190 vs. $8,457; p<0.001). OOP costs were also highest in the first 12 months (CCC: $5,483/patient; non-CCC: $3,575/patient [Fig 2]). Conclusions: Using a commercial insurance database, we find that for patients diagnosed with ALL between the ages of 22y and 39y, the costs paid by the health plan are 3 times higher for those receiving care at an NCI-designated CCC as compared to a non-CCC site. Along the same lines, out of pocket costs are 1.7 times higher for those receiving care at an NCI-designated CCC as compared to a non-CCC site. The difference in cost is highest during the first year of therapy. We are currently examining the details of what drives the higher cost of care at CCC. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Lyman: Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support; Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,039
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,077

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,296
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchTravaux en français237 207