MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P4-11-14: Number Needed To Treat (NNT) as a Measure of Incremental Drug Benefit: Denosumab vs. Zoledronic Acid for the Prevention of Skeletal Related Events (SREs) in Advanced Breast Cancer.

2011· article· en· W2313602753 on OpenAlexaff
George Dranitsaris, S. Kaura

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsNovartis (Canada)Augmentium Pharma Consulting (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenosumabMedicineNumber needed to treatZoledronic acidBreast cancerRandomized controlled trialOncologyUrologyInternal medicineSurgeryRelative riskCancerOsteoporosisConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Intravenous zoledronic acid (ZOL) is the standard of care for the prevention of SREs in advanced breast cancer. However, monthly subcutaneous denosumab (Dmab) was recently approved in the US, as an alternative to ZOL based on the results of a large randomized trial which demonstrated a prolongation in median time to first SRE (HR = 0.82, p = 0.01) and a 5.8% (p = 0.01) absolute reduction in SREs in favour of Dmab over the 34 month study period. The challenge for clinicians and payers is how to reconcile the modest benefits of Dmab with the cost, which is approximately twice that of ZOL. NNT represents the number of patients that need to be treated with a new intervention in order to avoid one additional event, and is a widely accepted approach used to make sense of numerical results from clinical trials. In this analysis, the NNT approach was used to assess the incremental benefit of Dmab over ZOL for the prevention of SREs in advanced breast cancer. Methods: The pivotal randomized trial for Dmab vs. ZOL in breast cancer (Stopeck, JCO 2010 & US PI 2010) was reviewed. As an alternative to ZOL, the NNT with Dmab to avoid any SRE at 12 and 34 months (trial end) was determined. NNT by type of SRE was also estimated. These consisted of pathologic fractures, radiation to bone, spinal cord compressions and surgery to bone. The calculated NNT represents the incremental benefit provided by Dmab above and beyond Zometa therapy. Results: To avoid a single SRE after 12 months of treatment of continuous therapy with Dmab, approximately 36 patients need to be treated. To avoid a single fracture and radiation to bone, approximately 39 and 27 patients need to be treated with Dmab over a 34 month period. Dmab was unable to offer any incremental benefit over ZOL in terms of avoiding spinal cord compressions or surgery to bone after 34 months of treatment. Discussion: The NNT approach is a simple and effective method to express the findings in a clinically meaningful way. In this analysis, the incremental benefit of Dmab would only be realized when a minimum of 36 patients are treated for 12 months. For the more severe skeletal-related events, in terms of clinical and economic burden to patients and society, such as spinal cord compression and surgery to bone, Dmab did not offer any incremental benefit over ZOL in terms of SRE avoidance. This marginal incremental benefit needs to be considered alongside the high cost of Dmab. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-14.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→