MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

PD06-06: Is Adjuvant Trastuzumab Economically Justified in Her-2/neu Positive T1bNO Breast Cancer?

2011· article· en· W2078885057 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Skedgel, Daniel Rayson, T. Younis

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrastuzumabBreast cancerCardiotoxicityInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologyChemotherapyDiseaseCancerRelative riskSurgeryGynecologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: A number of clinical trials and cost-utility analyses of adjuvant trastuzumab (aTZ) for Her-2/neu positive breast cancer suggest favourable efficacy and safety along with acceptable cost-effectiveness. These evaluations, however, were based on patient cohorts with moderate-to-high risk disease, including node positive or high risk node negative disease with tumor sizes greater than 1cm (≥T1cN0). The role of aTZ for patients with lower risk disease, such as T1bN0, remains unclear in light of the varying 10-year relapse risks (10-30%) reported to date. Objective: To estimate the cost-utility of chemotherapy plus aTZ versus chemotherapy alone in Her-2/neu positive breast cancer patients with lower recurrence risk in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Methods: A state-transition economic model was developed to estimate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains associated with a strategy of chemotherapy plus aTZ relative to chemotherapy alone over a 25-year analysis horizon. The model consisted of four broad health states, stratified with or without cardiotoxicity: 1) disease-free, 2) local recurrence, 3) distant recurrence and 4) death. Given the variability in reported risk estimates for T1bN0 disease, a range of 10-year baseline recurrence risks (10-30%) in the absence of chemotherapy or aTZ was examined. The clinical benefit of chemotherapy was assumed to differ according to age (<50 vs. ≥50 years). The hazard ratio of recurrence with aTZ (HR=0.64) and the rate of associated adverse cardiac events were derived primarily from the HERA clinical trial. Utility weights and the costs of local and distant cancer recurrence were derived from the literature, while the costs of adjuvant and palliative TZ were derived from our previous work. The model took a direct payer perspective, with costs reported in 2011 Canadian dollars (CDN$). Costs and QALYs were both discounted by 3% annually. The reference analysis assumed 3 years of clinical benefit from chemptherapy and aTZ. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses tested the impact of longer benefit as well as the impacts of measuring outcomes in terms life years rather than QALYs, a lifetime analysis horizon and different HRs. Results: The reference analysis observed that the cost per QALY gained was greater than CDN$100,000 across the entire range of recurrence risks tested. One-way sensitivity analyses observed that considering life years rather than QALYs, a lifetime analysis horizon, extending the duration of benefit to 5 years or improving the HR to 0.54 each did little to improve the overall economic favorability of aTZ, even at the higher range of recurrence risk. Conclusions: The cost-utility of adjuvant trastuzumab appears unfavourable in Her-2/neu positive breast cancers with a baseline 10-year relapse risk of less than 30% without treatments, such as in T1bN0 disease. Specific estimates of cost-utility await more precise estimates of the recurrence risk in patients with T1bN0 disease. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD06-06.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→