Gillian M Duchesne1,2,3, Mel Grand4, Tomas Kron1,3,5, Annette Haworth1,2, June Corry1,2, Michael Jackson6, Michael Ng7, Deidre Besuijen4, Hannah E Carter8, Andrew Martin8, Deborah Schofield8,9, Val Gebski8, Joan Torony4, Olga Kovacev4, Rowena Amin10, Bryan Burmeister11. 1. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 5. RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Radiation Oncology Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 9. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 10. Health and Training Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 11. Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The study aim was to develop a generic framework to derive the parameters to populate health-economic models for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. METHODS: A draft framework was developed through horizon scanning for relevant technologies, literature review to identify framework models, and a workshop program with radiation oncology professionals, biostatisticians, health economists and consumers to establish the Framework's structure. It was tested using four clinical protocols, comparing intensity modulated with 3D conformal therapy (post-prostatectomy, anal canal and nasopharynx) and image-guided radiation therapy techniques with off-line review of portal imaging (in the intact prostate). RESULTS: The draft generic research framework consisted of five sequential stages, each with a number of components, and was assessed as to its suitability for deriving the evidence needed to populate the decision-analytic models required for the health-economic evaluations. A final Framework was established from this experience for use by future researchers to provide evidence of clinical efficacy and cost-utility for other novel techniques. The four clinical treatment sites tested during the project were considered suitable to use in future evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a generic research framework to predict early and long-term clinical outcomes, combined with health-economic data, produced a generally applicable method for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. Its application to further health technology assessments in the radiation oncology sector will allow further refinement and support its generalisability.
INTRODUCTION: The study aim was to develop a generic framework to derive the parameters to populate health-economic models for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. METHODS: A draft framework was developed through horizon scanning for relevant technologies, literature review to identify framework models, and a workshop program with radiation oncology professionals, biostatisticians, health economists and consumers to establish the Framework's structure. It was tested using four clinical protocols, comparing intensity modulated with 3D conformal therapy (post-prostatectomy, anal canal and nasopharynx) and image-guided radiation therapy techniques with off-line review of portal imaging (in the intact prostate). RESULTS: The draft generic research framework consisted of five sequential stages, each with a number of components, and was assessed as to its suitability for deriving the evidence needed to populate the decision-analytic models required for the health-economic evaluations. A final Framework was established from this experience for use by future researchers to provide evidence of clinical efficacy and cost-utility for other novel techniques. The four clinical treatment sites tested during the project were considered suitable to use in future evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a generic research framework to predict early and long-term clinical outcomes, combined with health-economic data, produced a generally applicable method for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. Its application to further health technology assessments in the radiation oncology sector will allow further refinement and support its generalisability.
Authors: Elizabeth Brown; Alison Cray; Annette Haworth; Sarat Chander; Robert Lin; Brindha Subramanian; Michael Ng Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2015-02-12
Authors: Tamara Fogarty; Mark Tacey; Giulia McCorkell; David Kok; Colin Hornby; Roger L Milne; Jeremy Millar; Farshad Foroudi; Wee Loon Ong Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.667