Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27401887›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2016

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Using Loss of Heterozygosity to Manage Premalignant Oral Dysplasia in British Columbia, Canada.

Ian Cromwell, Dean A Regier, Stuart J Peacock, Catherine F Poh

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ian CromwellCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Department of Cancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada icromwell@bccrc.ca.
Dean A RegierCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Department of Cancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Stuart J PeacockCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Department of Cancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Catherine F PohDepartment of Cancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Department of Oral Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CABC Cancer Agency · CACanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManagement of low-grade oral dysplasias (LGDs) is complicated, as only a small percentage of lesions will progress to invasive disease. The current standard of care requires patients to undergo regular monitoring of their lesions, with intervention occurring as a response to meaningful clinical changes. Recent improvements in molecular technologies and understanding of the biology of LGDs may allow clinicians to manage lesions based on their genome-guided risk.

methodsWe used a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified care using a genomic assay. In the experimental arm, patients with LGDs were managed according to their risk profile using the assay, with low- and intermediate-risk patients given longer screening intervals and high-risk patients immediately treated with surgery. Patients in the comparator arm had standard care (biannual follow-up appointments at an oral cancer clinic). Incremental costs and outcomes in life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated based on the results in each arm.

resultsThe mean cost of assay-guided management was $8,123 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2,973 to $23,062 in 2013 Canadian dollars) less than the cost of standard care. This difference was driven largely by reductions in resource use among people who did not develop cancer. Mean incremental effectiveness was 0.18 LYG (95% CI 0.08 to 0.39) or 0.64 QALY (95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). Sensitivity analysis suggests that these findings are robust to both expected and extreme variation in all parameter values.

conclusionUse of the assay-guided management strategy costs less and is more effective than standard management of LGDs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this study strongly suggest that the use of a risk-stratification method such as a genomic assay can result in improved quality-adjusted survival outcomes for patients with low-grade oral dysplasia (LGD). The use of such an assay in this study provides "precision medicine," allowing for a change in follow-up frequency or early intervention as compared with current standard care. As genomic technologies become more common in cancer care, it is hoped that such an assay, once validated, will become part of a new model for the standard management of LGDs in similar health systems.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedBritish ColumbiaFemaleGenetic TestingHeterozygoteHumansLoss of HeterozygosityMaleMiddle AgedMouth NeoplasmsPrecancerous ConditionsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCost-effectivenessDecision modelingGenetic testingMouth neoplasmsPrecancerous conditions

Identifiers

PMID27401887
PMCPMC5016061
OpenAlexW2464278690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.