MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for the first-line treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in Canada

2009· article· en· W2470918530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer C. Sambrook, Adrian R. Levy, Karissa Johnston, N. J. Ricard, Chantal Bourgault, B.M.K. Donato, Finbarr Sheehan, Sebastién J. Hotte, Martin Chasen, Andrew Briggs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalBristol-Myers Squibb (Canada)Royal Victoria Regional Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCetuximabInternal medicineOncologyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaRadiation therapyHead and neck cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e17000 Background: Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is a disfiguring and potentially fatal condition. Cetuximab is a new therapeutic option which has been shown to improve locoregional control (LRC) and reduce mortality in the treatment of locally and regionally advanced disease. Objectives: To estimate the incremental cost-utility of cetuximab plus radiotherapy (CxRT) versus cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CsRT) among platinum eligible patients and versus RT alone in platinum ineligible patients in Canada. Methods: A lifetime transition model was developed with four health states: 1) acute treatment phase; 2) LRC; 3) disease progression and 4) death. Adverse events were accounted for in the first two states. Efficacy of treatment (LRC and overall survival) was obtained from the literature. Based on network meta-analyses, CsRT and CxRT were assumed to have equal efficacy. Resource use was obtained from published literature and clinical expert opinion. The perspective adopted was that of a provincial ministry of health or cancer agency. Utilities were obtained from a previous study of United Kingdom oncology nurses. Costs (2008 CDN$) and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses performed to assess robustness of results. A priori sub-group analyses were carried out by baseline Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS). Results: Among all patients (KPS 60–100), the ICERs comparing CxRT to RT were $19,740/QALY (95% CI: $11,122 to $695,295) among platinum ineligible patients and for CxRT vs. CsRT, $99,147/QALY (95% CI: $75,998 to $148,951) among platinum eligible patients. ICERs decreased with increasing KPS scores. At a willingness to pay of $50,000 among platinum-ineligible patients and $100,000 among platinum-eligible patients, the likelihood that CxRT is cost-effective is 90% and 45% respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that time horizon and assumptions about CsRT effectiveness had the largest impact on results. Conclusion: Cetuximab is an economically attractive option for SCCHN patients. [Table: see text]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207