Literature DB >> 27012232

Development and Evaluation of an Approach to Using Value of Information Analyses for Real-Time Prioritization Decisions Within SWOG, a Large Cancer Clinical Trials Cooperative Group.

Caroline S Bennette1, David L Veenstra1, Anirban Basu2, Laurence H Baker3, Scott D Ramsey4, Josh J Carlson1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Value of information (VOI) analyses can align research with areas with the greatest potential impact on patient outcome, but questions remain concerning the feasibility and acceptability of these approaches to inform prioritization decisions. Our objective was to develop a process for calculating VOI in "real time" to inform trial funding decisions within SWOG, a large cancer clinical trials group.
METHODS: We developed an efficient and scalable VOI modeling approach using a selected sample of 9 randomized phase II/III trial proposals from the Breast, Gastrointestinal, and Genitourinary Disease Committees reviewed by SWOG's leadership between 2008 and 2013. There was bidirectional communication between SWOG investigators and the research team throughout the modeling development. Partial expected value of sample information for the treatment effect evaluated by the proposed trial's primary endpoint was calculated using Monte Carlo simulation.
RESULTS: We derived prior uncertainty in the treatment effect estimate from the sample size calculations. Our process was feasible for 8 of 9 trial proposals and efficient: the time required of 1 researcher was <1 week per proposal. We accommodated stakeholder input primarily by deconstructing VOI metrics into expected health benefits and incremental healthcare costs and assuming treatment decisions within our simulations were based on health benefits. Following customization, feedback from over 200 SWOG members was positive regarding the overall VOI framework, specific retrospective results, and potential for VOI analyses to inform future trial proposal evaluations.
CONCLUSIONS: We developed an efficient and customized process to calculate the expected VOI of cancer clinical trials that is feasible for use in decision making and acceptable to investigators. Prospective use and evaluation of this approach is currently underway within SWOG.
© The Author(s) 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  detailed methodology; qualitative methods; resource allocation; value of information

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27012232      PMCID: PMC5963256          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16636847

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  21 in total

1.  The value of information and optimal clinical trial design.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan; Eleanor M Pinto
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Developing stakeholder involvement for introducing public health genomics into public policy.

Authors:  H Burton; M Adams; R Bunton; P Schröder-Bäck
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement.

Authors:  Patricia A Deverka; Danielle C Lavallee; Priyanka J Desai; Laura C Esmail; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra; Sean R Tunis
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.744

4.  Addressing adoption and research design decisions simultaneously: the role of value of sample information analysis.

Authors:  Claire McKenna; Karl Claxton
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-10       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Medical research: Trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic; Ambuj Kumar; Paul Glasziou; Branko Miladinovic; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007).

Authors:  William B Wong; Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Louis P Garrison; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 2.226

7.  Value of information and value of implementation: application of an analytic framework to inform resource allocation decisions in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ties Hoomans; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Steve Palmer; Karl Claxton
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: an application in cancer genomics.

Authors:  Josh J Carlson; Rahber Thariani; Josh Roth; Julie Gralow; N Lynn Henry; Laura Esmail; Pat Deverka; Scott D Ramsey; Laurence Baker; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling.

Authors:  A E Ades; G Lu; K Claxton
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  At what level of collective equipoise does a randomized clinical trial become ethical for the members of institutional review board/ethical committees?

Authors:  Rahul Mhaskar; Barry B Bercu; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2013
View more
  8 in total

1.  Prioritizing Future Research on Allopurinol and Febuxostat for the Management of Gout: Value of Information Analysis.

Authors:  Eric Jutkowitz; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Hyon K Choi; Karen M Kuntz; Hawre Jalal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Are Evidence Standards Different for Genomic- vs. Clinical-Based Precision Medicine? A Quantitative Analysis of Individualized Warfarin Therapy.

Authors:  D S Dhanda; G F Guzauskas; J J Carlson; A Basu; D L Veenstra
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 6.875

3.  Influence of Modeling Choices on Value of Information Analysis: An Empirical Analysis from a Real-World Experiment.

Authors:  David D Kim; Gregory F Guzauskas; Caroline S Bennette; Anirban Basu; David L Veenstra; Scott D Ramsey; Josh J Carlson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Regulator Loss Functions and Hierarchical Modeling for Safety Decision Making.

Authors:  Laura A Hatfield; Christine M Baugh; Vanessa Azzone; Sharon-Lise T Normand
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  How can clinical researchers quantify the value of their proposed comparative research?

Authors:  Anirban Basu; David L Veenstra; Josh J Carlson; Wei-Jhih Wang; Kelley Branch; Jeffrey Probstfield
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2018-12-08       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Directing research funds to the right research projects: a review of criteria used by research organisations in Australia in prioritising health research projects for funding.

Authors:  Haitham W Tuffaha; Najwan El Saifi; Suzanne K Chambers; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Integrating value of research into NCI Clinical Trials Cooperative Group research review and prioritization: A pilot study.

Authors:  Josh J Carlson; David D Kim; Gregory F Guzauskas; Caroline S Bennette; David L Veenstra; Anirban Basu; Nathaniel Hendrix; Dawn L Hershman; Laurence Baker; Scott D Ramsey
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 4.452

8.  Practical metrics for establishing the health benefits of research to support research prioritisation.

Authors:  Beth Woods; Laetitia Schmitt; Claire Rothery; Andrew Phillips; Timothy B Hallett; Paul Revill; Karl Claxton
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2020-08
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.