MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B9: Cost effectiveness of gene expression profiling for tumor site origin

2012· article· en· W2008436378 on OpenAlexaff
John Hornberger, Irina Degtiar, Hialy Gutierrez, Ashwini Shewade, W. David Henner, Shawn Becker, Stephen S. Raab

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedicaidReferralChemotherapyInternal medicineMalignancyObservational studyOncologyCancerQuality-adjusted life yearCost effectivenessSurgeryEmergency medicineHealth careFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Gene expression profiling (GEP) reliably supplements traditional clinicopathological information on the tissue of origin (TOO) in metastatic or poorly differentiated cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis of GEP TOO testing versus usual care was conducted from a third-party payer perspective in the United States. Methods: A retrospective, observational study examined treatment changes in patients whose physicians had received the GEP TOO test results to help diagnose the tissue-site of their patient's malignancy and to guide appropriate therapy. Changes in planned chemotherapy, surgery, radiation therapy, added blood tests, imaging investigations, and referral to hospice care before and after the GEP TOO test results were recorded. The effect of changes in chemotherapy on survival were based on randomized controlled trials informing appropriate use of chemotherapy cited in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Up-to-Date guidelines. Drug and administration costs were based on average doses reported in NCCN guidelines. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) fee schedules were used to obtain other unit costs. Quality-of-life weights were obtained from literature sources. Changes in overall survival, costs, and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were estimated using bootstrap methods. Results: Use of chemotherapy regimens consistent with guidelines for the final tumor-site diagnosis increased significantly from 42% to 65% (net difference 23%; p< 0.001). Overall survival was projected to increase from 15.9 months to 19.5 months (mean difference 3.6 months, 95%CI [2.0, 5.1]). The average increase in survival adjusted for quality of life was 2.7 months (95%CI [1.4, 3.9]), and average third-party payer costs per patient increased by $10,360 (95% CI [$5,668, $15,053]). The cost per QALY gained was $46,858 (95% CI [$17,995, $75,718]). Conclusions: GEP TOO testing significantly altered clinical practice patterns for treating metastatic cancer of uncertain primary. It is projected to increase overall survival, QALYs, and costs, resulting in an expected cost per QALY of less than $50,000.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.397
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207