Literature DB >> 26026162

A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

N I Cherny1, R Sullivan2, U Dafni3, J M Kerst4, A Sobrero5, C Zielinski6, E G E de Vries7, M J Piccart8.   

Abstract

The value of any new therapeutic strategy or treatment is determined by the magnitude of its clinical benefit balanced against its cost. Evidence for clinical benefit from new treatment options is derived from clinical research, in particular phase III randomised trials, which generate unbiased data regarding the efficacy, benefit and safety of new therapeutic approaches. To date, there is no standard tool for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies, which may range from trivial (median progression-free survival advantage of only a few weeks) to substantial (improved long-term survival). Indeed, in the absence of a standardised approach for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit, conclusions and recommendations derived from studies are often hotly disputed and very modest incremental advances have often been presented, discussed and promoted as major advances or 'breakthroughs'. Recognising the importance of presenting clear and unbiased statements regarding the magnitude of the clinical benefit from new therapeutic approaches derived from high-quality clinical trials, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit for cancer medicines, the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). This tool uses a rational, structured and consistent approach to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit that can be expected from a new anti-cancer treatment. The ESMO-MCBS is an important first step to the critical public policy issue of value in cancer care, helping to frame the appropriate use of limited public and personal resources to deliver cost-effective and affordable cancer care. The ESMO-MCBS will be a dynamic tool and its criteria will be revised on a regular basis.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ESMO; clinical benefit; tool

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26026162     DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  175 in total

1.  Ramucirumab for Colon Cancer and the Problem of Rising Prices Independent of Benefits.

Authors:  Peter B Bach
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-08-11

2.  Health policy: Putting a price on cancer.

Authors:  Richard Sullivan; Ajay Aggarwal
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 3.  A review of guidelines for lung cancer.

Authors:  Paolo Bironzo; Massimo Di Maio
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  ABC3 Consensus: Assessment by a German Group of Experts.

Authors:  Christoph Thomssen; Doris Augustin; Johannes Ettl; Renate Haidinger; Hans-Joachim Lück; Diana Lüftner; Frederik Marmé; Norbert Marschner; Lothar Müller; Friedrich Overkamp; Eugen Ruckhäberle; Marc Thill; Michael Untch; Rachel Wuerstlein; Nadia Harbeck
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 5.  Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy compared to standard radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer (stage Ia2 to IIa).

Authors:  Chumnan Kietpeerakool; Apiwat Aue-Aungkul; Khadra Galaal; Chetta Ngamjarus; Pisake Lumbiganon
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-02-12

6.  Approvals in 2016: questioning the clinical benefit of anticancer therapies.

Authors:  Christopher M Booth; Joseph C Del Paggio
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 66.675

7.  Costs and concerns in cancer care.

Authors:  Ian Haines
Journal:  Aust Prescr       Date:  2016-10-04

8.  Quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma: a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis.

Authors:  David F McDermott; Ruchit Shah; Komal Gupte-Singh; Javier Sabater; Linlin Luo; Marc Botteman; Sumati Rao; Meredith M Regan; Michael Atkins
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  First-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: integrating clinical benefit with the costs of drugs.

Authors:  Jacopo Giuliani; Andrea Bonetti
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-09-08       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Price Transparency for Whom? In Search of Out-of-Pocket Cost Estimates to Facilitate Cost Communication in Cancer Care.

Authors:  Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Shelley Fuld Nasso; S Yousuf Zafar
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.