MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC C/D) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis.

2020· article· en· W3004949061 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Javanbakht, Mohsen Yaghoubi, Atefeh Mashayekhi, Philipp Horvath, Alfred Koenigsrainer, Marc A. Reymond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyCancerCisplatinInternal medicineOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

387 Background: The efficacy of systemic chemotherapy is still highly unsatisfactory for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (PM). The aim of this study was to assess the costs effectiveness of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) for advanced gastric cancer. Methods: We developed a state transition Markov Model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the use of PIPAC C/D versus palliative chemotherapy. Intervention was assessed in two different levels including upfront therapy (PIPAC C/D plus XELOX chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone) and second line therapy (PIPAC C/D only versus second-line chemotherapy (ramucirumab monotherapy)). Data from multiple sources such as published literature and UK-based databases were used to inform the economic model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of key parameter variation on the results. Results: For the upfront therapy the estimated total costs in the intervention and comparator arms were £33,587(SD: £2,394) and £17,477 (£927) respectively. PIPAC C/D plus XELOX led to an increase of 0.56 in QALYs. Estimated incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) was £28,879. Result from probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that PIPAC C/D plus XELOX is cost effective in more than 50% of Monte Carlo simulations at £30,000 threshold. For the second-line therapy, the total costs for PIPAC C/D was £15,985 (£1,391) and for the second-line palliative chemotherapy was £36,319 (£3,673). PIPAC C/D led to an increase of 0.21 in QALYs and £20,222 reduction in costs, meaning the intervention is dominant strategy in the second line therapy as it is less costly and more effective. Conclusions: The cost effectiveness results for the upfront therapy indicate that PIPAC C/D plus chemotherapy intervention is more costly and more effective and a cost effective intervention. PIPAC C/D only intervention has the potential to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis and therefore a dominant strategy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207