Economic evaluations of leukemia: A review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Leukemia, together with lymphoma and multiple myeloma, are hematological malignancies, malignancies of the blood-forming organs. There are four major types of leukemia: acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). There is a growing amount of literature of the health economic aspects of leukemia. However, no comprehensive review is yet performed on the health economic evidence for the disease. Hence, our aim was to review and analyze the existing literature on economic evaluations of the different types of leukemia. METHODS: A systematic literature search used electronic databases to identify published cost analyses and economic evaluations of leukemia treatments. After reviewing all identified studies, sixty studies were considered relevant for the purpose of the review. RESULTS: The identified studies were published after 1990, with a few exceptions. Many of the identified economic evaluations in leukemia, particularly for ALL and AML, may be defined as cost-minimization analyses, where only the costs of different treatment strategies are compared. In CML, a new treatment, imatinib, was introduced in 2001 and several cost-effectiveness analyses have since then been conducted comparing imatinib with previous first line treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that there is a shortage of cost-effectiveness information in leukemia. The introduction of new therapies will stress the need for new economic evaluations in this group of diseases. More information about the total costs, that is, including indirect costs, and quality of life effects would be valuable in future evaluations in leukemia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".