MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Addition of Rituximab to CHOP Is an Attractive Strategy as Primary Therapy for Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) in Patients Age <60 Years: An Economic Analysis.

2004· article· en· W2984501600 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Kuruvilla, Rodrigo B. Cavalcanti, Armand Keating, Michael Crump

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCHOPRituximabVincristineInternal medicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaOncologySurgeryAutologous stem-cell transplantationPrednisoneChemotherapyCyclophosphamideLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy has been the standard of care for treatment of DLBCL. The randomized trial by Coiffier et al. (NEJM 2002) of CHOP vs. the anti-CD20 antibody Rituximab+CHOP (R-CHOP) demonstrated that R-CHOP improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients 60 years or older with DLBCL. Preliminary results of a randomized trial by Pfreundschuh et al. (ASCO 2004, Abstract 6500) and a cohort study by Sehn et al. (ASH 2003 Abstract 88) have demonstrated similar outcomes in patients age < 60 years. Rituximab dramatically increases the cost of chemotherapy due to additional drug expense and increased administration times. However, an improvement in OS and PFS may offset initial costs by reducing the need for salvage chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). To test this hypothesis, a cost analysis was performed to evaluate how the decision to make R-CHOP the treatment standard for DLBCL in Ontario may affect the cost of treatment in patients (pts) less than 60 years of age. Methods: A decision analysis tree summarizing clinical outcomes for 2 years following initial treatment for DLBCL was built using TreeAge Pro 4.0 (TreeAge Software Inc. MA). This time period was chosen because the current follow-up of pts age <60 treated with R-CHOP years is short. The decision node compared initial treatment with CHOP vs. initial treatment with R-CHOP. Both arms included the costs of salvage chemotherapy (using DHAP) with subsequent ASCT as well as palliative chemotherapy. Radiation therapy costs were not included. Costs were calculated in Canadian dollars and were obtained from clinical data at Princess Margaret Hospital. Treatement outcome probabilities were obtained from the literature or from local clinical experience if published data were not available. A utility analysis could not be performed due to a lack of measured utility data in pts with DLBCL who have received R-CHOP, CHOP or ASCT. Results: The R-CHOP strategy resulted in higher overall costs but greater effectiveness than CHOP alone. Mean costs were C$30,000 for the R-CHOP strategy compared to C$19,000 for the CHOP strategy. The incremental cost per life year gained by the R-CHOP strategy for DLBCL was $70,806. One-way sensitivity analysis for all variables did not significantly alter results. The key variables influencing the decision are the cost of Rituximab, the cost of ASCT, and the efficacy of Rituximab. Discussion: With an incremental cost of < $100 000 per life year, initial R-CHOP chemotherapy for DLBCL is moderately attractive even within a short time horizon of two years, mainly by reducing the need for subsequent salvage chemotherapy and ASCT, and their associated costs. Although the follow-up of studies of pts age<60 is short, it is likely that the benefits in life-years would accrue over time and make R-CHOP chemotherapy even more attractive. The results of R-CHOP chemotherapy in patients > 60 indicate that this treatment produces durable remissions and this will likely be the case in younger patients. Although we did not perform a cost-utility analysis, higher quality-of-life associated with disease remission, compared to ASCT, would favor use of R-CHOP. In conclusion, R-CHOP is an economically attractive treatment for DLBCL despite the high-cost of Rituximab.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→