Cost-effectiveness of screening guidelines to prevent heart failure in childhood cancer survivors: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10052 Background: Childhood cancer survivors treated with anthracyclines or chest radiation therapy (RT) are at risk for left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and subsequent heart failure (HF). The International Guideline Harmonization Group (IGHG) recommends risk-based screening echocardiograms for LVD, but evidence supporting its frequency and cost-effectiveness is limited. Methods: Using data from the CCSS, we developed a microsimulation model of the clinical course of LVD and HF to estimate long-term health and economic outcomes associated with screening for IGHG-defined risk groups (low [anthracycline 1-99 mg/m2 and/or RT < 15 Gy], moderate [100 to < 250 mg/m2 or 15 to < 35 Gy], high [≥ 250 mg/m2 or ≥ 35 Gy or (≥ 100 mg/m2 and ≥ 15 Gy)]). We compared 1, 2, and 5-year interval-based screening to no screening. Screening performance and pharmacological treatment effectiveness were based on published studies. Costs and quality of life weights were based on US averages and published studies. Outcomes included lifetime HF risk, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Strategies with ICERs < $100,000/QALY gained were considered cost-effective. Results: Among the IGHG risk groups, the lifetime HF risk in the absence of screening was 37% (high), 25% (moderate) and 17% (low). Screening every 2 or 5 years was cost-effective for the high-risk group, and every 5 years for the moderate-risk group. In contrast, routine screening may not be cost-effective for the low risk group, representing ~40% of those for whom screening is currently recommended. Conclusions: Our findings can inform screening guidelines and suggest that LVD/HF surveillance for low-risk survivors warrants careful consideration. [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 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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".