MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137753306

Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Oncotype DX for Guiding Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decisions in Early Breast Cancer.

2021· article· en· W3137753306 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fadi El Karak, Elie Rassy, Josiane Bassil, Mohamed Awali, Colette Hanna, Anthony Saroufim, Fadi Nasr, Fadi Farhat, Joseph Kattan, Marwan Ghosn, Mike Paulden

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerAdjuvantOncologyCohortInternal medicinePopulationGynecologyAdjuvant chemotherapyCancerFamily medicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Oncotype DX is approved in multiple countries but its cost-effectiveness is a matter of considerable health debate. Lebanon is high-middle income country according to the World Bank classification however it is facing a mounting financial and health care burden from cancer. Therefore, we conducted a costeffectiveness analysis of Oncotype DX based Lebanese on real-life data. METHODS: We updated a Canadian cost-effectiveness model of Oncotype DX by incorporating Lebanese data. The patient population was a real-life cohort of 82 women diagnosed with hormone receptor - positive and HER2 - negative early breast cancer. RESULTS: Overall, providing Oncotype DX to only intermediate Adjuvant! Online risk patients costs an additional $83 CAD (93,883 LBP) per additional QALY. From this point, extending provision to also cover high Adjuvant! Online risk patients costs an additional $736 CAD (831,578 LBP) per additional QALY. From this point, extending provision further to also cover low Adjuvant! Online risk patients (such that Oncotype DX is provided to all patients) costs an additional $14,562 CAD (16.46m LBP) per additional QALY. Given that most women in our population-based sample were classified as intermediate Adjuvant! Online risk patients, our study focused on this subset in the second analysis. Providing Oncotype DX to intermediate Adjuvant! Online risk patients has a relatively small additional cost compared to not providing Oncotype DX, and results in a relatively large QALY gain. The incremental cost per QALY is $2,022 CAD (2.29m LBP), implying that Oncotype DX is cost-effective for intermediate Adjuvant! Online risk patients if the willingness-to-pay for a QALY is greater than 2.29m LBP. CONCLUSION: As one of the few economic evaluations to date conducted using Lebanese data, this evaluation provides information to decision makers regarding the cost-effectiveness of providing Oncotype DX to Lebanese patients.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207