MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115019000 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa198

Cost-Effectiveness of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Screening With Epstein-Barr Virus Polymerase Chain Reaction or Serology in High-Incidence Populations Worldwide

2020· review· en· W3115019000 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob A. Miller, Quynh‐Thu Le, Benjamin A. Pinsky, Hannah Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNasopharyngeal carcinomaMedicineIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineCost effectivenessCohortSerologyOncologyImmunologyRadiation therapyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of endemic Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) varies considerably worldwide. In high-incidence regions, screening trials have been conducted. We estimated the mortality reduction and cost-effectiveness of EBV-based NPC screening in populations worldwide. METHODS: We identified 380 populations in 132 countries with incident NPC and developed a decision-analytic model to compare 10 unique onetime screening strategies with no screening for men and women aged 50 years. Screening performance and the stage distribution of undiagnosed NPC were derived from a systematic review of prospective screening trials. RESULTS: Screening was cost-effective in up to 14.5% of populations, depending on the screening strategy. These populations were limited to East Asia, Southeast Asia, and North Africa or were Asian, Pacific Islander, or Inuit populations in North America. A combination of serology and nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction was most cost-effective, but other combinations of serologic and/or plasma polymerase chain reaction screening were also cost-effective. The estimated reduction in NPC mortality was similar across screening strategies. For a hypothetical cohort of patients in China, the 10-year survival improved from 71.0% (95% confidence interval = 68.8% to 73.0%) without screening to a median of 86.3% (range = 83.5%-88.2%) with screening. This corresponded to a median 10-year reduction in NPC mortality of 52.9% (range = 43.1%-59.3%). Screening interval affected absolute mortality reduction and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We observed decreased NPC mortality with EBV-based screening. Screening was cost-effective in many high-incidence populations and could be extended to men and women as early as age 40 years in select regions. These findings may be useful when choosing among local public health initiatives.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207