MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950234208 · doi:10.1002/hon.106_2629

COST‐EFFECTIVENESS AND COST‐UTILITY ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TREATMENT STRATEGIES USING ABVD AND/OR BEACOPP IN THE TREATMENT OF ADVANCED‐STAGE HODGKIN LYMPHOMA

2019· article· en· W2950234208 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anca Prica, Abi Vijenthira, Kitty Chan, Matthew C. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsMedicineABVDIncremental cost-effectiveness ratioQuality-adjusted life yearLife expectancyCost effectivenessBrentuximab vedotinOncologyHodgkin lymphomaInternal medicineLymphomaPopulationRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental healthChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There remains clinical equipoise over the best initial treatment strategy for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Recent PET-adapted trials (RATHL, HD18, AHL2011) have tried to balance the trade-off that occurs with an inferior progression-free survival in the ABVD strategy, but higher rates of hematologic toxicity, infertility, and second malignancy in the BEACOPP strategy. The overall lifetime cost of each strategy remains unknown, especially costs which incorporate therapies for relapsed disease including brentuximab consolidation after autologous stem cell transplant and palliative therapy with nivolumab, and associated health state utilities. Methods: We developed a Markov decision analytic model to compare the life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALYs), and direct costs with varying upfront treatment regimens for a hypothetical cohort of transplant-eligible patients with newly-diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. A 20-year time horizon was used. Baseline probability estimates and utilities were derived from a systematic review of published studies (i.e. HD2000, Viviani, EORTC, HD15, HD18, RATHL, AHL2011, Echelon-1). A Canadian public health payer's perspective was considered and costs are presented in 2018 Canadian dollars. All costs and benefits were discounted by 1.5%. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Results: See Table 1 for results of the 20-year model. In the base-case analysis, the AHL2011 protocol was associated with both cost-savings and improved quality-adjusted outcomes over all other treatment strategies (Figure 1A). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model was robust to key variables including probability of treatment-related mortality, probability of death from secondary malignancy, and probability of infertility secondary to BEACOPP. The threshold utility of infertility was found to be 0.71 (Figure 1B). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (10,000 simulations) were performed (Figure 1C). For the WTP threshold of $100,000, AHL2011 was the dominant strategy 73% of the time (Figure 1D). Conclusions: The preferred treatment strategy for patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma is the AHL2011 PET-adapted regimen. This strategy maximizes life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years, and is the most cost-effective strategy, accounting for increased rates of hematologic toxicity, secondary malignancy, and infertility caused by exposure to at least 2 cycles of BEACOPP. Keywords: ABVD; BEACOPP; Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207