Cost-Utility of Early Breast Cancer Surveillance in Survivors of Thoracic Radiation-Treated Adolescent Hodgkin Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescent women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are at increased risk of breast cancer (BC). We evaluate the cost-utility of eight high-risk BC surveillance strategies for this population, including the Children's Oncology Group guideline of same-day annual mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) beginning at age 25 years. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was used to simulate the life histories of a cohort of 500 000 25-year-old women treated for HL at age 15 years. We estimated BC incidence and mortality, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), health-care costs, and the relative cost-utility (incremental cost-utility ratio [ICUR]) under the eight assessed surveillance strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis enabled modeling of uncertainty evaluation. A publicly funded health-care payer perspective was adopted. RESULTS: Costs across the eight screening strategies ranged from $32 643 to $43 739, whereas QALYs ranged from 24.419 to 24.480. In an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, annual mammography beginning at age 25 years was associated with an ICUR of $43 000/QALY gained, annual MRI beginning at age 25 years with a switch to annual mammography at age 50 years had an ICUR of $148 000/QALY, and annual MRI beginning at age 25 years had an ICUR of $227 222/QALY. Among all assessed surveillance strategies, the differences in life expectancy were small. CONCLUSIONS: Current high-risk BC surveillance guidelines do not reflect the most cost-effective strategy in survivors of adolescent HL. The results suggest that groups at high risk of BC may require high-risk surveillance guidelines that reflect their specific risk profile.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".