Verification of imatiNib cost-effectiveness in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor in British Columbia (VINCE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10049 Background: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of imatinib in British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in terms of median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS). Results were also compared to imatinib literature reports. Methods: A pragmatic, retrospective medical record review identified BCCA patients with advanced GIST who received imatinib or historical treatment during successive, pre-specified time periods. Data was collected on survival, duration of therapy, progression free status, and cost of drug, labour and supplies. Primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness of imatinib based on median-OS (Kaplan Meier method). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on median overall-PFS, cost of therapy per patient, 1-year OS, and 1-year PFS. This study was conducted from the perspective of the BCCA. Sensitivity analyses varying effectiveness over the 95% CI, cost over the range of treatment duration, discounting level at 0, 3 and 5%, and comparing effectiveness to literature controls were performed. Life expectancy (mean survival), was also calculated and used in the CE sensitivity analysis. Results: Forty-six and 47 patients in the imatinib and historical groups respectively were analyzed. Median-OS in the imatinib group was 66.7 months (95% CI 61.7, infinity) compared to 7.7 months (95% CI 6.0, 12.6) in the historical group. Median-PFS was 45.3 months (95% CI 24.4, infinity) and 5.6 months (95% CI 3.5, 8.5) respectively. The 1-year OS and 1-year PFS for the imatinib group was 95.4% (95% CI 82.9, 99.2) and 81.4% (95% CI 66.1, 91.1) compared to 32.6% (95% CI 20.0, 48.1) and 17.4% (95% CI 8.3 - 32.0) in the historical group. No difference was seen between the imatinib study results and literature reports. The annual incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $15,882 per median life year gained and $23,603 per median year of PFS for imatinib. Conclusions: Imatinib for advanced GIST is a cost- effective treatment in BC. Results were robust across the range of sensitivity analyses performed. 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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".