OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating cancer intervention efficacy. Randomized trials are not always feasible, practical, or timely and often don't adequately reflect patient heterogeneity and real-world clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness research can leverage secondary data to help fill knowledge gaps randomized trials leave unaddressed; however, comparative effectiveness research also faces shortcomings. The goal of this project was to develop a new model and inform an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined prevalent models and conducted semi-structured discussions with 76 clinicians and comparative effectiveness research researchers affiliated with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's cancer comparative effectiveness research programs. RESULTS: A new model was iteratively developed and presents cancer comparative effectiveness research and important measures in a patient-centered, longitudinal chronic care model better reflecting contemporary cancer care in the context of the cancer care continuum, rather than a single-episode, acute-care perspective. CONCLUSION: Immediately relevant for federally funded comparative effectiveness research programs, the model informs an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs, including evolutionary enhancements to registries and epidemiologic research data systems. We discuss elements of contemporary clinical practice, methodology improvements, and related needs affecting comparative effectiveness research's ability to yield findings clinicians, policy makers, and stakeholders can confidently act on.
OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating cancer intervention efficacy. Randomized trials are not always feasible, practical, or timely and often don't adequately reflect patient heterogeneity and real-world clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness research can leverage secondary data to help fill knowledge gaps randomized trials leave unaddressed; however, comparative effectiveness research also faces shortcomings. The goal of this project was to develop a new model and inform an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined prevalent models and conducted semi-structured discussions with 76 clinicians and comparative effectiveness research researchers affiliated with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's cancer comparative effectiveness research programs. RESULTS: A new model was iteratively developed and presents cancer comparative effectiveness research and important measures in a patient-centered, longitudinal chronic care model better reflecting contemporary cancer care in the context of the cancer care continuum, rather than a single-episode, acute-care perspective. CONCLUSION: Immediately relevant for federally funded comparative effectiveness research programs, the model informs an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs, including evolutionary enhancements to registries and epidemiologic research data systems. We discuss elements of contemporary clinical practice, methodology improvements, and related needs affecting comparative effectiveness research's ability to yield findings clinicians, policy makers, and stakeholders can confidently act on.
Authors: Bradford R Hirsch; Robert B Giffin; Laura C Esmail; Sean R Tunis; Amy P Abernethy; Sharon B Murphy Journal: Cancer J Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Timothy J Beebe; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Jennifer L St Sauver; Sarah M Jenkins; Lindsey Haas; Michael E Davern; Nicholas J Talley Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joseph Lipscomb; K Robin Yabroff; Mark C Hornbrook; Anna Gigli; Silvia Francisci; Murray Krahn; Gemma Gatta; Annalisa Trama; Debra P Ritzwoller; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Ramzi Salloum; Neetu Chawla; Catia Angiolini; Emanuele Crocetti; Francesco Giusti; Stefano Guzzinati; Maura Mezzetti; Guido Miccinesi; Angela Mariotto Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2013
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Rebecca Ziebell; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey Honda; Mark C Hornbrook; Mara Epstein; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Pamala A Pawloski; Debra P Ritzwoller; Nirupa R Ghai; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Heather A Clancy; V Paul Doria-Rose; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Heather Bagley; Karen L Barnes; Jane M Blazeby; Sara T Brookes; Mike Clarke; Elizabeth Gargon; Sarah Gorst; Nicola Harman; Jamie J Kirkham; Angus McNair; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Jochen Schmitt; Caroline B Terwee; Bridget Young Journal: Trials Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Anne-Marie Meyer; Andrew F Olshan; Laura Green; Adrian Meyer; Stephanie B Wheeler; Ethan Basch; William R Carpenter Journal: N C Med J Date: 2014 Jul-Aug
Authors: Angela K Green; Robert W Corty; William A Wood; Mathew Meeneghan; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Ethan Basch; Matthew I Milowsky; Stacie B Dusetzina Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-04-17
Authors: Gregory W Hruby; Julia Hoxha; Praveen Chandar Ravichandran; Eneida A Mendonça; David A Hanauer; Chunhua Weng Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 4.046