Verification of imatinib cost-effectiveness in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor in British Columbia (VINCE-BC study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This cost-effectiveness analysis of imatinib in British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) was performed to justify funding. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pragmatic, retrospective review identified BCCA patients with advanced GIST who received imatinib or historical treatment during successive, pre-specified time periods. Primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness (CE) of imatinib based on median overall survival (MOS). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on median progression-free survival (PFS) and comparison to literature efficacy. This study took the BCCA perspective. Sensitivity analyses varying effectiveness over the 95% confidence interval (CI), cost to its extremes, discounting level at 0, 3, and 5%, and substituting life expectancy for MOS were performed. RESULTS: Forty-six and 47 patients in the imatinib and historical groups respectively showed MOS with imatinib to be 66.7 months (95%CI 61.7- infinity) compared to 7.7 (95%CI 6.0-12.6) in the historical group. Median-PFS were 45.3 months (95%CI 24.4-infinity) and 5.6 (95%CI 3.5-8.5) respectively. Imatinib effectiveness was similar to literature reports. The annual incremental CE ratio for imatinib was $15,882 CDN per median life year gained and $23,603 CDN per median year of PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Imatinib for advanced GIST seems cost-effective in BC. RESULT: were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".