MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135995176 · doi:10.1200/jop.2011.000315

Do Economic Evaluations of Targeted Therapy Provide Support for Decision Makers?

2011· article· en· W2135995176 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ilia Ferrusi, Natasha B. Leighl, Nathalie A. Kulin, Deborah A. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineTargeted therapyMEDLINECancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Decision makers must make decisions without complete information. That uncertainty can be decreased when economic evaluations use local data and can be quantified by considering the variability of all model inputs concurrently per international evaluation guidelines. It is unclear how these recommendations have been implemented in evaluations of targeted cancer therapy. By using economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab, we have assessed the extent to which decision support recommendations were adopted. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Published economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment in early-stage breast cancer were examined as an established example of targeted therapy. Canadian, United Kingdom, and US economic evaluation guidelines were reviewed to establish extraction criteria. Extraction characterized the use of effectiveness evidence and local data sources for model parameters, sensitivity analysis methods (scenario, univariate, multivariate, and probabilistic), and uncertainty representation (ie, cost-effectiveness plane, scatterplot, confidence ellipses, tornado diagrams, cost-effectiveness acceptability curve). RESULTS: Fifteen economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab were identified in the literature. Local data were used to estimate costs (15 of 15) and utilities rarely (2 of 15) but not trastuzumab efficacy. Univariate sensitivity analysis was most common (12 of 15), whereas probabilistic analysis was less frequent (10 of 15). Two-thirds of all studies provided visual representation of results and decision uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Authors of adjuvant trastuzumab economic evaluations rarely use local data beyond costs. Quantification of uncertainty and its representation also fell short of guideline recommendations. This review demonstrates that economic evaluations of adjuvant trastuzumab, as an example of targeted cancer therapy, can be improved for decision-making support.

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)0.266
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.760
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2660.760
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0160.022
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology PracticeSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207