Abstract P1-10-05: A cost utility analysis from a Chinese health care perspective of Nab-paclitaxel or docetaxel, both as alternatives to solvent-based paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer (MBC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Paclitaxel and docetaxel are commonly used for the treatment of MBC in China. However, one important drawback, particularly with docetaxel, is the potential for dose-limiting toxicity. To improve the side effect profile and efficacy of paclitaxel, an albumin-bound formulation (nab-paclitaxel) is currently available in China (Abraxane®). To provide health economic data for China, a cost utility analysis comparing nab-paclitaxel to docetaxel, both as alternatives to paclitaxel was conducted. Methods: Clinical data was obtained from a meta analysis of randomized trials comparing either nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m2 q3wk) or branded docetaxel (100 mg/m2 q3wk) to solvent-based branded paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 q3wk). Health care resource use for the delivery of chemotherapy and the management of grade 3/4 toxicity was collected from a time and motion study in three Chinese cancer centers, from a survey of clinicians and from the oncology literature. Using the Time Trade-off technique, treatment preferences and utility estimates were obtained from interviewing 28 cancer patients from two centres in China. All costs were reported in 2014 $U.S. Results: Nab-paclitaxel had the most favourable safety profile characterized with the lowest incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, emesis and stomatitis. This translated to lower costs for managing the grade 3/4 side effects of nab-paclitaxel relative to both docetaxel and paclitaxel ($21 vs. $166 vs. $81) In the preference assessment, 22 of 28 (78.6%) patients selected nab-paclitaxel as their preferred agent. As an alternative to paclitaxel, the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained was determined to be more favourable with nab-paclitaxel than docetaxel ($57,900 vs. $130,600). Conclusions: Nab-paclitaxel is an economically attractive alternative to both paclitaxel and docetaxel in MBC patients, providing a substantially lower cost per QALY. Additionally in the patient preference survey, the majority of patients surveyed selected nab-paclitaxel as their preferred agent. Citation Format: George Dranitsaris, Bo Yu, Jennifer King, Adams Zhang, Satyn Kaura, Zhai Qing. A cost utility analysis from a Chinese health care perspective of Nab-paclitaxel or docetaxel, both as alternatives to solvent-based paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-10-05.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".