MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4287969252

5-Aminolevulinic Acid Hydrochloride (5-ALA)-Guided Surgical Resection of High-Grade Gliomas: A Health Technology Assessment.

2020· article· en· W4287969252 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineGrading (engineering)Systematic reviewChristian ministryModalitiesGliomaRandomized controlled trialMEDLINESurgery
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High-grade gliomas are a type of malignant brain tumour. Optimal management often includes maximal surgical resection. 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride (5-ALA) is an imaging agent that makes a high-grade glioma fluoresce under blue light, which can help guide the surgeon when removing the tumour. We conducted a health technology assessment of 5-ALA-guided surgical resection of high-grade gliomas, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, the budget impact of publicly funding 5-ALA, and patient preferences and values. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews, and selected and reported results from one review that was recent, of high quality, and relevant to our research question. We complemented the identified systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. We reported the risk of bias of each included study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a systematic economic literature search to identify economic studies that compared 5-ALA-guided surgical resection of high-grade gliomas with standard surgical care or other intraoperative imaging modalities. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation due to lack of high-quality published clinical evidence evaluating 5-ALA-guided surgical resection. From the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, we analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding 5-ALA-guided surgical resection for adults with newly diagnosed, primary, high-grade gliomas for which resection is considered feasible. To contextualize the potential value of 5-ALA, we spoke with someone who had experience with high-grade glioma, 5-ALA-guided resection, and standard surgical treatment. RESULTS: We included one systematic review reporting on a single randomized controlled trial in the clinical evidence review. 5-ALA increased the proportion of patients achieving complete tumour resection compared with standard care (relative risk of incomplete resection 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.71; GRADE: Low). Evidence was uncertain for an effect on overall survival with 5-ALA (hazard ratio for death 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.07; GRADE: Low), but there may be an improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (GRADE: Very low). Adverse events between groups was insufficiently reported, but appeared similar between groups for overall and neurological adverse events, with an observed increase in neurological deficits 48 hours after surgery with 5-ALA (GRADE: Very low). The economic literature search identified five studies that met our inclusion criteria because they evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 5-ALA-guided surgical resection as compared with surgery with a standard operating microscope under white light ("white-light microscopy"). Most of these studies found 5-ALA-guided surgical resection was cost-effective compared to white-light microscopy for high-grade gliomas. However, all studies derived clinical model inputs of the comparative safety and effectiveness parameters of 5-ALA from limited and low-quality evidence. Public funding of 5-ALA-guided surgical resection in Ontario over the next 5 years would result in a budget impact of about $930,000 in year 1 to about $1,765,000 in year 5, yielding a total budget impact of about $7,500,000 over this period. The one participant we interviewed had experience with high-grade glioma, standard surgical treatment, and 5-ALA-guided resection. The participant felt that 5-ALA-guided resection resulted in accurate tumour removal and also found it reassuring that 5-ALA could help the surgeon better visualize the tumour. CONCLUSIONS: 5-ALA-guided surgical resection appears to improve the extent of resection of high-grade gliomas compared with surgery using standard white-light microscopy (GRADE: Low). The evidence suggests 5-ALA-guided resection may improve overall survival; however, we cannot exclude the possibility of no effect (Grade: Low). 5-ALA may improve 6-month progression-free survival, although the results are highly uncertain (GRADE: Very low). There is an uncertain impact on overall or neurological adverse events (GRADE: Very low). We did not identify any economic studies conducted from the perspective of the Ontario or Canadian public health care payer. Of the studies that met our inclusion criteria, most found 5-ALA-guided surgical resection was cost-effective compared to white-light microscopy for high-grade gliomas. However, clinical model inputs for the comparative effectiveness and safety of 5-ALA were based on limited and low-quality evidence. We estimate that publicly funding 5-ALA-guided surgical resection in Ontario over the next 5 years would result in a total 5-year budget impact of about $7,500,000. For people diagnosed with high-grade gliomas, 5-ALA is seen positively as a useful imaging tool for brain tumour resection.

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)0,073
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,212
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,073
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,384

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0730,212
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0080,014
Bibliométrie0,0250,018
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0070,005
Science ouverte0,0030,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,003
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 Opus0,059
Tête enseignante GPT0,321
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations15
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed→Même sujetGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→