MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in second-line advanced bladder cancer.

2018· article· en· W2793782219 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michal Sarfaty, Peter S Hall, Kelvin Chan, Kiran Virik, Moshe Leshno, Noa Gordon, Assaf Moore, Victoria Neiman, Eli Rosenbaum, Daniel A. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPembrolizumabMedicineBladder cancerWillingness to payCost effectivenessOncologyInternal medicineQuality-adjusted life yearCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

472 Background: Recently, immune-modulating drugs have been introduced to the second line setting of advanced bladder cancer. Pembrolizumab increases overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared to chemotherapy in this setting based on the Keynote-045 study. The high cost of immunotherapy necessitates an assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the second-line treatment of advanced bladder cancer from the perspective of payers in multiple countries. Methods: We developed a Markov model to compare the costs and effectiveness of pembrolizumab with those of chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced bladder cancer. Health outcomes were measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were acquired for the following countries: U.S., U.K., Canada and Australia. Model robustness was addressed in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Pembrolizumab generated a gain of 0.36 QALYs compared to chemotherapy. Our analysis established the following incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in second-line advanced bladder cancer treatment - U.S. $122,557/QALY, U.K. $91,995/QALY, Canada $93,648/QALY, and Australia $99,966/QALY. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds per QALY are considered to be around 100,000-150,000 US dollars for the U.S., 20,000-50,000 pounds for the U.K. [25,000-65,000 US $], 20,000-100,000 CAD for Canada [16,000-80,000 US $] and 40,000-75,000 AUD for Australia [32,000-60,000 US $]. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness and WTP thresholds vary between countries. Compared to the other countries examined, U.S. drug prices were found to be highest, leading to the highest ICER. With standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, pembrolizumab may be considered cost-effective in the U.S., but not in the other countries examined.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→