MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164040923 · doi:10.1002/cncr.33653

A cost‐utility analysis comparing CT surveillance, PET‐CT surveillance, and planned postradiation neck dissection for advanced nodal HPV‐positive oropharyngeal cancer

2021· article· en· W3164040923 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terence Fu, Patrick Scheffler, David Forner, Christopher W. Noel, Shao Hui Huang, Ralph Gilbert, David P. Goldstein, Brian O’Sullivan, Hisham Mehanna, John Waldron, John R. de Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePositron emission tomographyPET-CTNuclear medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The cost utility of image-guided surveillance using computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT to planned postradiation neck dissection (PRND) was compared for the management of advanced nodal human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer following chemoradiation. METHODS: A universal payer perspective was adopted. A Markov model was designed to simulate four treatment approaches with 3-month cycles over a lifetime horizon: 1) CT surveillance, 2) standard PET-CT surveillance, 3) a novel PET-CT approach with repeat PET at 6 months postchemoradiation for equivocal responders, and 4) PRND. Parameters including probabilities of CT nodal progression/resolution, PET avidity, recurrence, and survival were obtained from the literature. Costs were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars and utilities were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: PET-CT surveillance dominated CT surveillance and PRND in the base case scenario, and the novel PET-CT approach was the most cost-effective strategy across a wide range of variables tested in one-way sensitivity analysis. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, novel PET-CT surveillance was the most cost-effective strategy in 78.1% of model iterations at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALYs. Novel PET-CT surveillance resulted in a 49% lower rate of neck dissection compared with traditional PET-CT, and yielded an incremental benefit of 0.14 QALYs with average cost savings of $1309. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided surveillance including PET-CT and CT are more cost effective than PRND. The novel PET-CT approach with repeat PET for equivocal responders was the dominant strategy and yielded both higher benefit and lower costs compared with standard PET-CT surveillance.

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)0.020
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207