MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A prospective economic analysis of cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer patients from the NCIC CTG and AGITG CO.17 trial

2008· article· en· W2284997115 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Mittmann, Hya Au, Dongsheng Tu, Chris J. O’Callaghan, Christos S. Karapetis, Malcolm J. Moore, John Zalcberg, John Simes, William K. Evans, Derek J. Jonker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCetuximabMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineOncologyRandomizationRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6528 Background: CO.17 study is the first intergroup (Canadian/Australian) trial, that prospectively collected resource utilization and utility data for cetuximab (N=283) vs. best supportive care alone (BSC; N=274) in advanced colorectal cancer patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on the improved survival, higher cost of cetuximab and variable costs across countries from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. Methods: The mean difference in trial survival times between cetuximab and BSC was calculated. Direct medical resource utilization data was collected during the trial from the time of randomization until death or study closure. Trial resources included medications physician visits, toxicity management, institutionalization, emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Mean overall incremental cost (2007 $CAN-provincial sources) was determined. Drug acquisition costs (DAC) for cetuximab, based on several countries, were used to determine the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per life-year gained (LYG). Sensitivity analyses for cetuximab DACs were conducted. Bootstrapping (1,000 iterations) provided 95%CI. Results: Mean incremental trial survival was 0.12 years. Preliminary results showed variability in the ICER, where DAC was the cost driver. At the lowest DAC ($2.94/mg), overall incremental costs were $19,361 for cetuximab compared to BSC, with incremental values of $1,086 for toxicity management, $1,016 for hospitalization, and $410 plus $81 for oncologist and family physician visits respectively. The ICER for cetuximab was $183,287/LYG (95%CI: $114,139-$581,027) using a $2.94/mg DAC (Switzerland), $198,467/LYG ($123,509-$558,270; $3.24/mg-Canadian suggested) and $375,047/LYG ($237,139- $1,233,111; $6.73/mg US). Sensitivity analyses produced an ICER of $50,000/LYG at $0.28/mg; $100,000/LYG at $1.30/mg and $200,000/LYG at $3.27/mg. Cost per quality adjusted life year will also be determined. Conclusions: Cetuximab showed high and variable ICERs dependent on a range of DACs in CO.17 advanced colorectal cancer patients. Utility will impact the incremental value. 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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.592
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.007 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→