An economic analysis of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) JBR.10, a randomized trial of adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus observation in early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7155 Background: NCIC CTG JBR.10 is among the landmark trials to establish 3rd generation platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy as standard of care after complete resection of stages IB-II NSCLC, improving 5-year survival by 15% and median survival by 21 months (p 0.04). The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy from the perspective of Canada’s public health care system was undertaken in a retrospective analysis based on the JBR.10 study population. Methods: Direct medical resource utilization data, from prospective trial data of patients enrolled onto the BR.10 trial at the 5 largest accruing Canadian centres, were identified and collected retrospectively. Direct medical costs included treatment, hospitalization and procedures. Data were captured from the time of randomization until death or study closure (April, 2004). Non-medical direct and indirect costs were not included. Available costs are presented both with and without discounting at 5% per year. Costs (2005 $CAN) were obtained from provincial sources. Average costs per treatment arm (adjuvant chemotherapy vs. observation) were calculated. Basic demographic statistics were calculated. Results: Utilization data were collected from 172 patients (36% of the trial population), 83 randomized to observation and 89 to chemotherapy. Preliminary results are available for the non-drug related costs of direct medical care including hospitalization and procedures. The mean cost of treatment for patients in the observation arm is $15,323 (25–75% IQR $1,933-$17,831), and $18,701 (25–75% IQR $2,873-$18,781) for patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy arm (2005 $CAN). Conclusion: Non-drug related costs are only slightly higher in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in the NCIC BR.10 trial, despite substantially longer survival for this group of patients. These preliminary results will be updated and cost effectiveness data will be available in May 2006. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".