Cost‐effectiveness of the McGill interactive pediatric oncogenetic guidelines in identifying Li–Fraumeni syndrome in female patients with osteosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a penetrant cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) associated with the development of many tumor types in young people including osteosarcoma and breast cancer (BC). The McGill Interactive Pediatric OncoGenetic Guidelines (MIPOGG) decision-support tool provides a standardized approach to identify patients at risk of CPSs. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis, from the healthcare payer perspective, to compare MIPOGG-guided, physician-guided, and universal genetic testing strategies to detect LFS in female patients diagnosed at an age of less than 18 years with osteosarcoma. We developed a decision tree and discrete-event simulation model to simulate the clinical and cost outcomes of the three genetic referral strategies on a cohort of female children diagnosed with osteosarcoma, especially focused on BC as subsequent cancer. Outcomes included BC incidence, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), healthcare costs, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). We conducted probabilistic and scenario analyses to assess the uncertainty surrounding model parameters. RESULTS: Compared to the physician-guided testing, the MIPOGG-guided strategy was marginally more expensive by $105 (-$516; $743), but slightly more effective by 0.003 (-0.04; 0.045) QALYs. Compared to MIPOGG, the universal testing strategy was $1333 ($732; $1953) more costly and associated with 0.011 (-0.043; 0.064) additional QALYs. The ICUR for the MIPOGG strategy was $33,947/QALY when compared to the physician strategy; the ICUR for universal testing strategy was $118,631/QALY when compared to the MIPOGG strategy. DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence for clinical and policy decision-making on the cost-effectiveness of genetic referral strategies to identify LFS in the setting of osteosarcoma. MIPOGG-guided strategy was most likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold value of $50,000/QALY.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".