MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PB1821 REAL‐WORLD HEALTHCARE RESOURCE UTILIZATION (HRU) AND COSTS OF DIFFUSE LARGE B‐CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL) PATIENTS INITIATED ON ANTI‐CANCER THERAPIES IN THE UNITED STATES (US)

2019· article· en· W2951443426 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoqin Yang, François Laliberté, Guillaume Germain, Monika Raut, Mei Sheng Duh, Saugata Sen, Dominique Lejeune, Kaushal Desai, Philippe Armand

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaDiagnosis codeInternal medicineOncologyMedical diagnosisCancerRetrospective cohort studyPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: DLBCL, the most common type of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma in the US, is associated with significant HRU and healthcare costs. In October 2015, DLBCL administrative claims were differentiated from primary mediastinal large B‐cell lymphoma (PMBCL) with the advent of ICD‐10‐CM disease‐specific codes, allowing a more detailed examination of real‐world HRU and costs in patients with DLBCL. Aims: This study aimed to describe real‐world HRU and costs among patients diagnosed with DLBCL who initiated anti‐cancer therapies using a US claim database. Methods: A retrospective database analysis was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics TM Data Mart database (01/2013–03/2018). Patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient encounters with an ICD‐10‐CM diagnosis code for DLBCL (or an antecedent ICD‐10‐CM diagnosis of other lymphoma, which may have been assigned before DLBCL confirmation) after October 1 st , 2015 (index date for incident patients) were classified as (1) incident if they had no prior ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis code for unspecified DLBCL or PMBCL, or as (2) prevalent if they had a prior ICD‐9‐CM code for unspecified DLBCL or PMBCL before October 2015 (index date for prevalent patients). Patients ≥18 years of age as of the index date with ≥12 months of continuous enrollment pre‐index date (baseline period) were included. Patients with any ICD‐10‐CM diagnosis for PMBCL or baseline diagnoses of Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or other selected lymphomas were excluded. Patients were observed up to the earliest date of end of data availability or end of continuous enrollment in health plans. All‐cause HRU (including inpatient stays, outpatient [OP] visits, emergency room visits, and other visits) and associated costs, including pharmacy costs, were computed per patient per year (PPPY) and reported for all treated patients and those treated with R‐CHOP (i.e., most used 1L treatment). Results: Among 4,074 DLBCL patients (3,201 incident; 873 prevalent), median (IQR) age was 73 (65–80) years; 46% were female. Incident and prevalent patients had mean Charlson comorbidity index scores of 2.7 and 2.3, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation [SD] total healthcare costs (medical and pharmacy costs) were $137,156 ± 123,753 and $127,202 ± 98,282 for all treated incident patients and those treated with R‐CHOP, respectively. Corresponding OP costs (including costs of administered therapies) were $88,202 ± 89,417 and $87,616 ± 77,362, respectively, and were the main drivers of total healthcare costs. Although similar trends were observed for prevalent patients, mean total healthcare costs were lower for all treated prevalent patients ($81,669 ± 114,414) relative to all treated incident patients; however follow‐up periods were longer for prevalent patients (∼2.5 years) compared to incident patients (∼11 months). A sensitivity analysis restricting patients’ evaluation periods up to 12 months (mean follow‐up periods of 8 months for incident and 11 months for prevalent patients) yielded more similar results (mean ± SD total healthcare costs for all treated patients: $169,776 ± 113,618 incident; $140,786 ± 86,428 prevalent) and highlighted increased costs incurred within the first year following a DLBCL diagnosis. Associated HRU results are presented in the Table below. Summary/Conclusion: Overall, this study highlighted the considerable economic burden of patients with DLBCL, particularly within the first year following diagnosis. image

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemaSphereSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207