MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P1-09-02: Health Care Costs Incurred by Post-Menopausal Women with Hormone-Positive Breast Cancer Following the Initial Diagnosis of Metastasis

2010· article· en· W2039057822 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Chastek, Song Gao, C. D. O’Malley, Elwyn Loh, Brittany Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyBreast cancerCancerInternal medicineOncologyRetrospective cohort studyCohortPopulationMetastasisMetastatic breast cancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives: Estimate the healthcare costs before and after progression to chemotherapy in a population of post-menopausal hormone-receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used claims from a large national US health plan. Females age 55 to 63 were selected if they were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer between 7/1/01 and 12/31/07, and initiated hormonal therapy before progressing to chemotherapy. Incident metastatic patients were followed until the earliest of disenrollment from the health plan, death, or 12/31/08. The pre-chemotherapy period was defined as the period between the incident diagnosis of metastases and the earlier of the initiation of chemotherapy and the end of the study period. Among the subset of patients with use of chemotherapy, the post-chemotherapy period was defined as the time following chemotherapy initiation until the end of the study. Inflation-adjusted costs were examined during the pre-and post-chemotherapy periods. Descriptive analyses were supplemented with Kaplan-Meier sample-average to adjust for variable follow-up time and censoring. Results: A total of 1,202 patients were identified, 366 (30.4%) of whom progressed to chemotherapy following the onset of metastases. The mean age ± SD was 58.9 ± 2.6 years. On average, patients incurred $79,139 (SD± $121,489) per year in total health care costs before the initiation of chemotherapy and $132,786 (SD± $117,635) after the initiation of chemotherapy. In the pre-chemotherapy and post-chemotherapy phases, medical expenses were $74,149 (SD± $119,838) and $120,942 (SD± $116,225) per patient-year, respectively, while outpatient medications filled at a retail pharmacy or through a mail system pharmacy cost $4,990 (SD± $5033) and $11,843 (SD± $14,431) per patient-year, respectively. On average, most of the observed medical expenses were incurred during outpatient visits with $44,405 (SD± $55,710) and $87,299 (SD± $75,360) per patient-year in the pre-and post-chemotherapy phases respectively. Inpatient stays accounted for $27,147 (SD± $101,405) and $30,118 (SD± $73,216) per patient-year during the pre-and post-chemotherapy periods, respectively. ER visits cost an average of $424 (SD± $1,871) per patient-year during the pre-chemotherapy period and $1,274 (SD± $5,686) per patient-year during the post chemotherapy period, on average. During the post-chemotherapy period, combined costs for both inpatient and outpatient chemotherapy were $33,559 (SD± $38,692) per patient-year on average, and costs for services associated with supportive care for chemotherapy during the same time period accounted for an additional $18,676 (SD± $30,281) per patient-year on average. After adjusting for variable follow-up times, cumulative total healthcare costs were $54,725, $73,107, and $84,200 for years one, two, and three of the pre-chemotherapy period, respectively, and were $92,639, $148,228, and $176,163 during the same portions of the post-chemotherapy period. Conclusions: Post-menopausal HR+ mBC patients incur significant healthcare costs both before and after progressing to chemotherapy. The main cost driver was medical costs in both the pre-and post-chemotherapy periods. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-09-02.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207