Comparison of chemotherapy use, cost, and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Western Washington and British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA3579 Background: Few studies have directly compared health care utilization, costs, and outcomes between geographically similar patients (pts) treated in the U.S.’ multi-payer health system versus Canada’s single-payer system. Using cancer registry and claims data, we assessed systemic therapy (ST) use, cost, and survival for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) pts in Western Washington (WW) and British Columbia (BC). Methods: Pts age ≥ 18 diagnosed with mCRC in 2010 and later were identified from 1) the BC Cancer Agency database and 2) a regional database linking WW SEER to claims from two large commercial insurers. Demographic and treatment characteristics for the two populations were compared using two-sample T tests. ST costs (first-line and lifetime) were expressed as mean per patient per month costs; Canadian costs were expressed in US dollars using the Purchasing Power Parity for Health in 2009. Median survival was reported for both populations. Results: 1622 BC pts and 575 WW pts were included in the analysis. BC pts were more likely to be older (median age 60 vs 66) and male (57% vs 48%, p = < 0.01). A greater proportion of WW versus BC pts received ST (79% vs. 68%, p < 0.01). FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was the most common first-line regimen in BC (32%) while FOLFOX was the most common first-line regimen in WW (39%). The mean monthly cost of first-line therapy per patient was significantly higher in WW than BC ($12,345 vs $6,195, p = < 0.01), and this was true for all regimens assessed. Mean lifetime monthly ST costs were significantly higher in WW ($7,883 vs $4,830, p = < 0.01). There was no difference in median overall survival between populations among those receiving ST (21.4 months (95% CI 18.0-26.2) in WW and 22.1 months (20.5-23.7) in BC) or among those not receiving ST (5.4 months (2.4-7.7) WW versus 6.3 months (5.2-7.3) BC). Conclusions: Utilization and cost of ST for mCRC was significantly higher for patients in WW compared to BC without differences in overall survival in treated and untreated patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".