MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986632087 · doi:10.1191/1078155204jp138oa

Temozolomide for malignant gliomas in British Columbia: A population-based cost-effectiveness analysis

2004· article· en· W1986632087 on OpenAlexaffabout
ED Greanya, SCM Taylor, F Hu BscPharm, Jeff Barnett, Brian Thiessen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemozolomideLomustineMedicineProgression-free survivalInternal medicineDacarbazinePopulationGliomaChemotherapyOncologySurgeryVincristineCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study objectives. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and outcomes achieved in patients with recurrent malignant glioma treated with temozolomide in British Columbia, as compared to previous lomustine use in the same patient population, and to temozolomide literature reports. Outcomes assessed included median overall survival, 6-month overall survival and 6-month progression free survival. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted to identify patients who received single-agent temozolomide or lomustine during successive, prespecified time periods. Data was collected on survival, disease progression, duration of therapy, cost of drug, labour and supplies, and successive or prior chemotherapy. Results. Six-month progression free survival (PFS) occurred in 52% and 42.9% of patients in the temozolomide and lomustine cohorts, respectively (P=0.44). Six-month overall survival and median overall survival (OS) were 72% and 40.86 weeks for temozolomide patients and 64.3% and 46.7 weeks for lomustine patients. These outcomes were not statistically different between the two treatment groups. Associated with these outcomes, temozolomide patients received a median of six cycles of drug treatment, with a median cost per patient of $11 660 (CAN). Alternatively, lomustine patients received a median of four cycles with a median cost per patient of $189 (CAN). In the cost-effectiveness analysis for median OS, temozolomide was not a cost-effective alternative, and for 6-month PFS, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of temozolomide was $1261 (CAN) for each additional percent of patients progression free at 6-months. Sensitivity analysis varying both median OS and 6-month PFS resulted in ICER’s of temozolomide ranging from $332 to $3277. Conclusions. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between patients treated with single-agent lomustine or temozolomide. Temozolomide therapy has an incremental cost increase over lomustine of $11 471 per patient. It appears when only survival outcomes and direct treatment costs are considered, lomustine is a more cost-effective treatment strategy in the specific setting of recurrent malignant glioma.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207