MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Resource utilization analysis of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (DD-MVAC) versus gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

2020· article· en· W4242384421 on OpenAlexaff
Kamaneh Montazeri, George Dranitsaris, Catherine Curran, Matthew D. Ingham, Mark A. Preston, Graeme S. Steele, Kerry L. Kilbridge, Xiao X. Wei, Bradley A. McGregor, Matthew Mossanen, Guru Sonpavde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsAugmentium Pharma Consulting (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCisplatinVinblastineGemcitabineChemotherapyInternal medicineBladder cancerUrologyMethotrexateGastroenterologyOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

474 Background: DD-MVAC and GC are commonly used NAC regimens for MIBC. While efficacy across studies appears similar, the resource utilization burdens have not been compared. Methods: We assessed the resource utilization and cost effectiveness of NAC with GC vs DD-MVAC for MIBC patients (pts) treated at Dana-Farber. Data on chemotherapy administered, supportive medications, relevant procedures, hospitalizations, clinic, infusion, and emergency room visits were collected retrospectively. Results: 147 patients were included, 51 in the DD-MVAC and 86 in the GC group. The two groups had similar baseline pt characteristics except lower mean age (59 vs 67 years, p<0.001) and higher proportion of ECOG-PS=0 (96.1% vs 60.5%, p<0.001) in the DD-MVAC group. The mean cumulative cisplatin dosages were similar (DD-MVAC=284 mg/m2, GC= 257 mg/m3). The DD-MVAC group exhibited a greater use of G-CSF analogues (100% vs 32.6%, p < 0.001), central line placement (28.6% vs 11.8%, p = 0.017), infusion visits/pt (12 vs 8), ER visits (35% vs 18%, p = 0.048), and cardiac imaging (0.98 vs 0.58/pt, p<0.001). Patients receiving GC were more likely to experience delayed chemotherapy cycles (30.2% vs 9.8%, p = 0.008) and required more frequent clinic visits (9 vs 5/pt). The frequency and duration of hospitalization (23.6% vs 13.7% and 0.88 vs 0.49 days/pt, p = 0.46) and rate of grade ≥3 toxicities (32.6% vs 45.1%, p = 0.18) were numerically but not statistically different between the GC and DD-MVAC group. Cost efficacy analysis is pending and will be presented. Conclusions: DD-MVAC and GC exhibit different characteristics in terms of resource utilization as NAC for MIBC. Importantly, excess resource utilization did not clearly favor one of the regimens, although the DD-MVAC group was younger with better ECOG-PS. Given that similar overall delivery of cumulative cisplatin dosage was feasible with both regimens, the values and costs affixed to different resources may impact the selection of DD-MVAC vs GC in different regions of the world.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→