MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Accounting for improved outcomes in budget impact analyses: Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2/neu-positive breast cancer

2008· article· en· W2590287407 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Skedgel, Daniel Rayson, T. Younis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrastuzumabBreast cancerPopulationInternal medicineOncologyCancerDemographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6573 Background: Adjuvant trastuzumab is associated with considerable acquisition costs, but it is important to consider net budget impact after accounting for improved outcomes. We estimated the net budget impact of adjuvant trastuzumab (aTZ) in early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system. Methods: The budget impact analysis (BIA) built upon a cost-effectiveness model (Skedgel et al, ASCO 2007) that considered the costs of drug acquisition and delivery, cardiotoxicities and recurrent disease, as well as improved disease-free and overall survival outcomes derived from the HERA trial of aTZ vs. primary treatment alone, over a 5-year horizon. The BIA took a population-level approach based on estimated 2007 breast cancer incidence rates, population projections for 2007–2011 and estimated eligibility rates from our previous work (Drucker et al, ASCO 2006). All costs are reported in 2007 Canadian dollars (CDN$). Results: aTZ had an upfront cost of CDN$49,965 per patient, but reductions in cancer recurrence over the 5-year analysis horizon reduced the net cost to CDN$44,998 per patient. Net impact declined over the initial 5 years (2007- 2011) as savings due to recurrences avoided accrued (start-up phase) and the ratio of net to gross annual budget impact fell from 95% to 85%. The cumulative net impact over the initial 5-year period (2007–2011) was roughly 10% less than the gross impact based on acquisition costs alone. In the second 5-year period (2012–2016), net and gross budget impact increased with population growth and increasing incidence in an ageing population (‘steady-state’ phase). Net budget impact in 2007 was projected to be CDN$91.3 million. Budget impact was driven primarily by the aTZ eligibility rate (8.5% in the baseline analysis). Conclusions: Annual net budget impact declined over the start- up phase as upfront costs were offset in part by savings due to recurrences avoided. Net budget impact in the steady-state phase grew at the same rate as the gross impact, but started from a lower baseline. While the projected net budget impact of aTZ was substantial, this analysis demonstrates the importance of accounting for differences in outcomes when conducting BIA. 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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.567
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.047 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→