Soluble in Chloroform,Dichloromethane,Ethyl Acetate,DMSO,Acetone,etc.
638.9±55.0 °C at 760 mmHg
HS Code Reference
Personal Projective Equipment
For Reference Standard and R&D, Not for Human Use Directly.
provides coniferyl ferulate(CAS#:66648-45-1) MSDS, density, melting point, boiling point, structure, formula, molecular weight etc. Articles of coniferyl ferulate are included as well.>> amp version: coniferyl ferulate
To examine whether the CMS and Premier Inc. Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (PHQID), a hospital-based pay-for-performance (P4P) and public quality reporting program, caused participating hospitals (1) to avoid treating minority patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia and (2) to avoid providing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) to minority patients diagnosed with AMI.
One hundred percent Medicare inpatient claims, denominator files, and provider of service files from 2000 to 2006.
We test for differences in the conditional probability of receiving care at PHQID hospitals for AMI, heart failure, and pneumonia before and after implementation of the PHQID between white and minority patients. We also test for differences in the conditional probability that white and minority patients diagnosed with AMI receive CABG in hospitals participating, and not participating, in the PHQID before and after the implementation of the PHQID.
Data Extraction Methods
Data were obtained from CMS.
We find little evidence that the PHQID reduced access for minority patients: only “Other Race” beneficiaries had a significant reduction in adjusted admissions to PHQID hospitals in the postperiod, and only for AMI. Only marginally significant (p<.10) evidence of a reduction in CABG was found, also occurring for Other Race beneficiaries. Conclusions Despite minimal evidence of minority patient avoidance in the PHQID, monitoring of avoidance should continue for P4P programs.
Incentives, disparities, hospitals
Has Pay-for-Performance Decreased Access for Minority Patients?
Andrew M Ryan
Breast cancer is a disease in which cells in the breast grow out of control. They often form a tumour that may be seen on an x-ray or felt as a lump.
Gene expression profiling (GEP) tests are intended to help predict the risk of metastasis (spread of the cancer to other parts of the body) and to identify people who will most likely benefit from chemotherapy. We conducted a health technology assessment of four GEP tests (EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna) for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests, and patient preferences and values.
We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), or Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS), depending on the type of study and outcome of interest, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also performed a literature survey of the quantitative evidence of preferences and values of patients and providers for GEP tests.
We performed an economic evidence review to identify published studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of each of the four GEP tests compared with usual care or with one another for people with early-stage invasive breast cancer. We adapted a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of care that includes a GEP test with usual care without a GEP test over a lifetime horizon. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding GEP tests to be conducted in Ontario, compared with funding tests conducted through the out-of-country program and compared with no funding of tests in any location.
To contextualize the potential value of GEP tests, we spoke with people who have been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer.
We included 68 studies in the clinical evidence review. Within the lymph-node-negative (LN-) population, GEP tests can prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence (GRADE: Moderate) and may predict chemotherapy benefit (GRADE: Low). The evidence for prognostic and predictive ability (ability to indicate the risk of an outcome and ability to predict who will benefit from chemotherapy, respectively) was lower for the lymph-node-positive (LN+) population (GRADE: Very Low to Low). GEP tests may also lead to changes in treatment (GRADE: Low) and generally may increase physician confidence in treatment recommendations (GRADE: Low).
Our economic evidence review showed that GEP tests are generally cost-effective compared with usual care.
Our primary economic evaluation showed that all GEP test strategies were more effective (led to more quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than usual care and can be considered cost-effective below a willingness-to-pay of $20,000 per QALY gained. There was some uncertainty in our results. At a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability of each test being cost-effective compared to usual care was 63.0%, 89.2%, 89.2%, and 100% for EndoPredict, MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna, respectively.
Sensitivity analyses showed our results were robust to variation in subgroups considered (i.e., LN+ and premenopausal), discount rates, age, and utilities. However, cost parameter assumptions did influence our results. Our scenario analysis comparing tests showed Oncotype DX was likely cost-effective compared with MammaPrint, and Prosigna was likely cost-effective compared with EndoPredict. When the GEP tests were compared with a clinical tool, the cost-effectiveness of the tests varied. Assuming a higher uptake of GEP tests, we estimated the budget impact to publicly fund GEP tests in Ontario would be between $1.29 million (Year 1) and $2.22 million (Year 5) compared to the current scenario of publicly funded GEP tests through the out-of-country program.
Gene expression profiling tests are valued by patients and physicians for the additional information they provide for treatment decision-making. Patients are satisfied with what they learn from GEP tests and feel GEP tests can help reduce decisional uncertainty and anxiety.
Gene expression profiling tests can likely prognosticate the risk of distant recurrence and some tests may also predict chemotherapy benefit. In people with breast cancer that is ER+, LN-, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, GEP tests are likely cost-effective compared with no testing. The GEP tests are also likely cost-effective in LN+ and premenopausal people. Compared with funding GEP tests through the out-of-country program, publicly funding GEP tests in Ontario would cost an additional $1 million to $2 million annually, assuming a higher uptake of tests. GEP tests are valued by both patients and physicians for chemotherapy treatment decision-making.
Gene Expression Profiling Tests for Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment
Bones are one of the most common metastatic sites for solid malignancies. Bone metastases can significantly increase mortality and decrease the quality of life of cancer patients. In the United States, around 350,000 people die each year from bone metastases. This study aimed to analyze and update the incidence and prognosis of bone metastases with solid tumors at the time of cancer diagnosis and its incidence rate for each solid cancer.
We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to find patients diagnosed with solid cancers originating from outside the bones and joints between 2010 and 2016. Data were stratified by age, sex, and race. Patients with a tumor in situ or with an unknown bone metastases stage were excluded. We then selected most of the sites where cancer often occurred, leaving 2,207,796 patients for the final incidence analysis. For the survival analysis, patients were excluded if they were diagnosed at their autopsy or on their death certificate, or had unknown follow-ups. The incidence of bone metastases and overall survival was compared between patients with different primary tumor sites.
We identified 2,470,634 patients, including 426,594 patients with metastatic disease and 113,317 patients with bone metastases, for incidence analysis. The incidence of bone metastases among the metastatic subset was 88.74% in prostate cancer, 53.71% in breast cancer, and 38.65% in renal cancer. In descending order of incidence, there were patients with other cancers in the genitourinary system (except for renal, bladder, prostate, and testicular cancer) (37.91%), adenocarcinoma of the lung (ADC) (36.86%), other gynecologic cancers (36.02%), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) (34.56%), non-small cell lung cancer not otherwise specified and others [NSCLC (NOS/others)] (33.55%), and bladder (31.08%) cancers. The rate of bone metastases is 23.19% in SCLC, 22.50% in NSCLC (NOS/others), 20.28% in ADC, 8.44% in squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (SCC), and 4.11% in bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [NSCLC (BAC)]. As for the digestive system, the overall bone metastases rate was 7.99% in the esophagus, 4.47% in the gastric cancer, 4.42% in the hepatobiliary cancer, 3.80% in the pancreas, 3.26% in other digestive organs, 1.24% in the colorectum, and 1.00% in the anus. Overall, the incidence rate of bone metastases among the entire cohort in breast and prostate cancer was 3.73% and 5.69%, respectively.
The results of this study provide population-based estimates for the incidence rates of patients with bone metastases at initial diagnosis of their solid tumor. The findings can help clinicians to early detect bone metastases by bone screening to anticipate the occurrence of symptoms and favorably improve the prognosis.
Bone metastases, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), incidence, prognosis
Incidence of patients with bone metastases at diagnosis of solid tumors in adults: a large population-based study
Jin-Feng Huang,1 Jianfei Shen,2 Xiao Li,3 Ramesh Rengan,4 Nicola Silvestris,5,6 Minqi Wang,7 Lisa Derosa,8 Xuanqi Zheng,1 Andrea Belli,9 Xiao-Lei Zhang,1 Yan Michael Li,corresponding author10 and Aimin Wucorresponding author1