MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4224442703 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1500796/v1

Economic Evaluations of Radioembolization With Itrium-90 Microspheres in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4224442703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irene Casáns, FM González, David Fuster, Antonio Rodrı́guez-Fernández, N. Sánchez, Itziar Oyagüez, R. Burgos, AO Williams, Nataly Espinoza-Cámac

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineMicrosphereLiver cancerSorafenibCost effectivenessInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium-90 microspheres is a clinically effective therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the available economic evaluations of TARE for the treatment of HCC.Methods: The Preferred Reported Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was followed by applying a search strategy across six databases. All studies identified as economic evaluations with TARE for HCC treatment in English or Spanish language were considered. Conversions were performed using 2020 purchasing-power-parity ($US PPP).Results: Among 423 records screened, 20 studies (6 cost-analyses, 3 budget-impact-analyses, 2 cost-effectiveness-analyses, 8 cost-utility-analyses, and 1 cost-minimization analysis) were finally included (13 European, 6 USA and 1 Canadian). The assessed populations included early- (n=4), and intermediate-advanced-stages patients (n=15). Included studies were evaluated from a payer perspective (n=20) and included both payer and social perspective (n=2). TARE was compared with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (n=9) or sorafenib (n=11). Life-years gained for TARE ranged from 1.3 to 3.1 vs. TACE and from 1.1 to 2.53 for TARE vs. sorafenib. TARE was associated with lower treatment cost in ten studies. TARE cost varied widely according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system and ranged from 1,311 PPP/month (BCLC-A) to 71,890 PPP/horizon time 5 years (BCLC-C). The incremental cost-utility ratio for TARE vs TACE resulted in a $PPP 17,397/Quality-adjusted-Life-Years (QALY) (n=1) and for TARE vs. sorafenib ranged from dominant (more effectiveness and lower cost) to 3,363 PPP/QALY.Conclusions: Economic evaluations of TARE for HCC treatment are heterogeneous. Overall, TARE is a cost-effective short- and long-term therapy for the treatment of intermediate-advanced HCC.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.014
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→