MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HBV screening before adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2014· article· en· W2589873828 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Wong, Lisa K. Hicks, Hong-Anh Tu, Murray Krahn, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Jordan J. Feld, Kelvin Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatitis B virusBreast cancerInternal medicineChemotherapyCost effectivenessCohortHepatitis BCancerOncologyImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11 Background: The seroprevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection among Canadian was 0.4%, and 1.6% among immigrants. Most infected individuals have clinically silent disease. Cytotoxic chemotherapy causes reactivation in 30% of the HBV infected patients. This can be severe and fatal, may also lead to interruption of chemotherapy. HBV screening before adjuvant chemotherapy (ADJ) for breast cancer (BC) seems to be a plausible strategy. Our objective is to estimate the health and economic effects of HBV screening strategies. Methods: We developed a state transition microsimulation model to examine the cost effectiveness of 3 strategies for 55 year old BC patients undergoing ADJ: (1) No screen; (2) Screen Imm: Screen immigrant only and treat; (3) Screen all: Screen all and treat; with antiviral therapies. In the model, health states were constructed to reflect the natural history of BC and HBV. Model data were obtained from published literature. We used a payer perspective, a lifetime time horizon, and used a 5% discount rate. Results: Screen all would prevent 43 severe reactivations (SR), 9 deaths from reactivation (DR), 22 chemotherapy interruptions (CI), 36 decompensated cirrhosis (DC), 48 HCCs, and 67 HBV deaths per 100,000 persons screened over the lifetime of the cohort. Screen Imm would prevent 34 SR, 4 DR, 20 CI, 30 DC, 41 HCCs, and 52 HBV deaths. Screen all was associated with an increase of at least 0.00368 quality adjusted life years (QALY) and cost C$116 more per person, translating to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of C$31,518-51,276/QALY gained compared with No screen, depends on different antiviral therapies. Screen all was the most cost effective, while Screen Imm was ruled out due to extended dominance (ED) by No Screen and Screen all. Conclusions: HBV screening before ADJ for BC patients would prevent a significant number of reactivations, and is likely be cost effective. [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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207