Combined modality therapy versus chemotherapy alone as an induction regimen for primary central nervous system lymphoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In immunocompetent patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL), combined modality therapy (CMT) using high-dose methotrexate and radiotherapy (WBRT) has improved response rates compared with chemotherapy alone. The trade-off is delayed and potentially devastating treatment-related neurotoxicity (NT). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model compared CMT with chemotherapy alone in age-stratified patients with PCNSL. Baseline probabilities were derived from a systematic literature review. Direct and lost productivity costs were collected from a Canadian perspective and presented in Can$ in 2011. Outcomes were life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The quality-adjusted life expectancy was 1.55 QALYs for CMT and 1.53 QALYs for chemotherapy alone. In younger patients (aged <60 years), CMT yielded 2.44 QALYs, compared with 1.89 QALYs for chemotherapy alone, yielding an expected benefit with CMT of 0.55 QALYs or 6.6 quality-adjusted months. The CMT strategy dominated in younger patients, as it was Can$11 951 less expensive than chemotherapy alone. The chemotherapy-alone strategy dominated in older patients, as it was Can$11 244 less expensive than CMT, and there was no difference in QALYs between the strategies. The model was robust in sensitivity analyses of key variables tested through the plausible ranges obtained from costing sources and published literature. CONCLUSION: The preferred induction strategy for younger patients with PCNSL appears to be CMT, which minimized cost while maximizing life expectancy and QALYs. This analysis confirms that the preferred strategy for older patients is chemotherapy alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".