Supportive Care Costs Associated with Second-Line Chemotherapy in Chinese Patients with Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare supportive care costs associated with second-line chemotherapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (advNS-NSCLC) in Chinese patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients receiving pemetrexed or docetaxel-based second-line chemotherapy for advNS-NSCLC in four Chinese hospitals from 2007 to 2012. The best matched pairs between pemetrexed and other regimens were identified using propensity score methods for head-to-head comparisons of supportive care costs per treatment cycle. Linear regression analyses were performed to rank log10 scale of supportive care costs per treatment cycle associated with chemotherapy by tumor response and hematologic toxicity. RESULTS: 384 patients were included to create propensity score-matched treatment groups for pemetrexed singlet versus docetaxel singlet, platinum/pemetrexed, and platinum/docetaxel, respectively. Pemetrexed singlet was associated with significantly less supportive care costs per treatment cycle than the two doublets (platinum/pemetrexed: median difference -RMB 9,877, p = 0.003; platinum/docetaxel: median difference -RMB 8,370, p = 0.009; 1 RMB = 0.16 USD) but not docetaxel singlet in matched patients. Of the four studied chemotherapy regimens, pemetrexed singlet was associated with the lowest log10 scale of supportive care costs per treatment cycle in patients with tumor control (coefficient relative to docetaxel singlet -1.049, p < 0.001) or leukopenia (coefficient relative to docetaxel singlet -0.991, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed singlet cost significantly less for supportive care than pemetrexed or docetaxel-based doublets when treating Chinese patients with AdvNS-NSCLC in the second-line setting. Pemetrexed singlet was also associated with significantly less supportive care costs per treatment cycle than docetaxel singlet in patients with tumor control or leukopenia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".