Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations, Costs/Resource Use, and Quality of Life in Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare and aggressive subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. While treatment of patients with MCL and their outcomes are previously published, the availability of heath economics evidence is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to conduct a comprehensive review of studies relating to economic evaluations, costs and resource use, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with MCL. METHODS: Search strategies were designed to capture studies reporting economic or HRQoL outcomes published in the previous 11 years (2007-2018). The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and EconLit. In addition, we reviewed congress abstracts presented over the previous 2 years (2015 and 2016; where 2017 proceedings had occurred, these were searched instead of 2015). Publications were screened in duplicate by two reviewers and supplementary searches were carried out on health technology assessment websites. Searches were first conducted in October 2017 and updated in March 2018. FINDINGS: The systematic literature review identified 11 economic evaluations (in 16 publications), seven studies reporting data relating to costs or resource use, and five relating to HRQoL. Four economic evaluations presented results for patients with MCL modelled in the first-line setting, while seven modelled patients in the relapsed/refractory setting. The majority of economic evaluations were conducted using a Markov model with three to five health states. Seven studies assessed resource use and reported adverse events as key drivers of increased costs and resource use. Across the five studies reporting HRQoL, disparate measures were used. Two studies reported improvement in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) total scores following treatment and found that clinical response to treatment was associated with improvement in overall HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The published economic and HRQoL evidence in MCL, although scarce, reveals that the economic and HRQoL burden associated with MCL is substantial. In highlighting this evidence, this analysis underlines a critical unmet need for more effective treatments with improved outcomes in MCL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".