BACKGROUND: We evaluated clinical practice guideline (cpg) recommendations from Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc) for molecularly targeted systemic treatments (tts) and subsequent funding decisions from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. METHODS: We identified pebc cpgs on tt published before June 1, 2010, and extracted information regarding the key evidence cited in support of cpg recommendations and the effect size associated with each tt. Those variables were compared with mohltc funding decisions as of June 2011. RESULTS: From 23 guidelines related to 17 tts, we identified 43 recommendations, among which 38 (88%) endorsed tt use. Among all the recommendations, 38 (88%) were based on published key evidence, with 82% (31 of 38) being supported by meta-analyses or phase iii trials. For the 38 recommendations endorsing tts, funding was approved in 28 (74%; odds ratio related to cpg recommendation: 29.9; p = 0.003). We were unable to demonstrate that recommendations associated with statistically significant improvements in overall survival [os: 14 of 16 (88%) vs. 8 of 14 (57%); p = 0.10] or disease- (dfs) or progression-free survival [pfs: 16 of 21 (76%) vs. 3 of 5 (60%); p = 0.59] were more likely to be funded than those with no significant difference. Moreover, we did not observe significant associations between funding approvals and absolute improvements of 3 months or more in os [6 of 6 (100%) vs. 3 of 6 (50%), p = 0.18] or pfs [6 of 8 (75%) vs. 10 of 12 (83%), p = 1.00]. CONCLUSIONS: For use of tts, most recommendations in pebc cpgs are based on meta-analyses or phase iii data, and funding decisions were strongly associated with those recommendations. Our data suggest a trend toward increased rates of funding for therapies with statistically significant improvements in os.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated clinical practice guideline (cpg) recommendations from Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc) for molecularly targeted systemic treatments (tts) and subsequent funding decisions from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. METHODS: We identified pebc cpgs on tt published before June 1, 2010, and extracted information regarding the key evidence cited in support of cpg recommendations and the effect size associated with each tt. Those variables were compared with mohltc funding decisions as of June 2011. RESULTS: From 23 guidelines related to 17 tts, we identified 43 recommendations, among which 38 (88%) endorsed tt use. Among all the recommendations, 38 (88%) were based on published key evidence, with 82% (31 of 38) being supported by meta-analyses or phase iii trials. For the 38 recommendations endorsing tts, funding was approved in 28 (74%; odds ratio related to cpg recommendation: 29.9; p = 0.003). We were unable to demonstrate that recommendations associated with statistically significant improvements in overall survival [os: 14 of 16 (88%) vs. 8 of 14 (57%); p = 0.10] or disease- (dfs) or progression-free survival [pfs: 16 of 21 (76%) vs. 3 of 5 (60%); p = 0.59] were more likely to be funded than those with no significant difference. Moreover, we did not observe significant associations between funding approvals and absolute improvements of 3 months or more in os [6 of 6 (100%) vs. 3 of 6 (50%), p = 0.18] or pfs [6 of 8 (75%) vs. 10 of 12 (83%), p = 1.00]. CONCLUSIONS: For use of tts, most recommendations in pebc cpgs are based on meta-analyses or phase iii data, and funding decisions were strongly associated with those recommendations. Our data suggest a trend toward increased rates of funding for therapies with statistically significant improvements in os.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical oncology; clinical trials; drug funding; health policy
Authors: Wolfgang Hiddemann; Michael Kneba; Martin Dreyling; Norbert Schmitz; Eva Lengfelder; Rudolf Schmits; Marcel Reiser; Bernd Metzner; Harriet Harder; Susanna Hegewisch-Becker; Thomas Fischer; Martin Kropff; Hans-Edgar Reis; Mathias Freund; Bernhard Wörmann; Roland Fuchs; Manfred Planker; Jörg Schimke; Hartmut Eimermacher; Lorenz Trümper; Ali Aldaoud; Reza Parwaresch; Michael Unterhalt Journal: Blood Date: 2005-08-25 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: George D Demetri; Allan T van Oosterom; Christopher R Garrett; Martin E Blackstein; Manisha H Shah; Jaap Verweij; Grant McArthur; Ian R Judson; Michael C Heinrich; Jeffrey A Morgan; Jayesh Desai; Christopher D Fletcher; Suzanne George; Carlo L Bello; Xin Huang; Charles M Baum; Paolo G Casali Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nick Thatcher; Alex Chang; Purvish Parikh; José Rodrigues Pereira; Tudor Ciuleanu; Joachim von Pawel; Sumitra Thongprasert; Eng Huat Tan; Kristine Pemberton; Venice Archer; Kevin Carroll Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Oct 29-Nov 4 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Farhad Ravandi; Susan O'Brien; Dan Jones; Susan Lerner; Stefan Faderl; Alessandra Ferrajoli; William Wierda; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Deborah Thomas; Charles Koller; Srdan Verstovsek; Francis Giles; Jorge Cortes; Marco Herling; Hagop Kantarjian; Michael Keating Journal: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Date: 2005-11
Authors: Paul Moreton; Ben Kennedy; Guy Lucas; Michael Leach; Saad M B Rassam; Andrew Haynes; Jane Tighe; David Oscier; Christopher Fegan; Andy Rawstron; Peter Hillmen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathy D Miller; Linnea I Chap; Frankie A Holmes; Melody A Cobleigh; P Kelly Marcom; Louis Fehrenbacher; Maura Dickler; Beth A Overmoyer; James D Reimann; Amy P Sing; Virginia Langmuir; Hope S Rugo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Lawrence Schwartz; Sergio Ricci; Dino Amadori; Armando Santoro; Arie Figer; Jacques De Greve; Jean-Yves Douillard; Chetan Lathia; Brian Schwartz; Ian Taylor; Marius Moscovici; Leonard B Saltz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Marion Procter; Brian Leyland-Jones; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Ian Smith; Luca Gianni; Jose Baselga; Richard Bell; Christian Jackisch; David Cameron; Mitch Dowsett; Carlos H Barrios; Günther Steger; Chiun-Shen Huang; Michael Andersson; Moshe Inbar; Mikhail Lichinitser; István Láng; Ulrike Nitz; Hiroji Iwata; Christoph Thomssen; Caroline Lohrisch; Thomas M Suter; Josef Rüschoff; Tamás Suto; Victoria Greatorex; Carol Ward; Carolyn Straehle; Eleanor McFadden; M Stella Dolci; Richard D Gelber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245