Literature DB >> 28574778

Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?

Sierra Cheng1, Erica J McDonald1, Matthew C Cheung1, Vanessa S Arciero1, Mahin Qureshi1, Di Jiang1, Doreen Ezeife1, Mona Sabharwal1, Alexandra Chambers1, Dolly Han1, Natasha Leighl1, Kelley-Anne Sabarre1, Kelvin K W Chan1.   

Abstract

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28574778     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6894

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  13 in total

1.  Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.

Authors:  J Keech; J Beca; A Eisen; E Kennedy; J Kim; C T Kouroukis; G Darling; S E Ferguson; A Finelli; T M Petrella; J R Perry; K Chan; S Gavura
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Value assessment in oncology drugs: funding of drugs for metastatic breast cancer in Canada.

Authors:  J Lemieux; S Audet
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Physicians' Perception of the Evidence in Relation to Primary Endpoints of Clinical Trials on Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Yi Zhang; Miao Liu; Houpu Yang; Shu Wang
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 2.268

4.  Prices and Clinical Benefit of National Price-Negotiated Anticancer Medicines in China.

Authors:  Yichen Zhang; Yuxuan Wei; Huangqianyu Li; Yixuan Chen; Yiran Guo; Sheng Han; Luwen Shi; Xiaodong Guan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 4.558

Review 5.  Adaptive Pathways: Possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation.

Authors:  Patricia Vella Bonanno; Michael Ermisch; Brian Godman; Antony P Martin; Jesper Van Den Bergh; Liudmila Bezmelnitsyna; Anna Bucsics; Francis Arickx; Alexander Bybau; Tomasz Bochenek; Marc van de Casteele; Eduardo Diogene; Irene Eriksson; Jurij Fürst; Mohamed Gad; Ieva Greičiūtė-Kuprijanov; Martin van der Graaff; Jolanta Gulbinovic; Jan Jones; Roberta Joppi; Marija Kalaba; Ott Laius; Irene Langner; Ileana Mardare; Vanda Markovic-Pekovic; Einar Magnusson; Oyvind Melien; Dmitry O Meshkov; Guenka I Petrova; Gisbert Selke; Catherine Sermet; Steven Simoens; Ad Schuurman; Ricardo Ramos; Jorge Rodrigues; Corinne Zara; Eva Zebedin-Brandl; Alan Haycox
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 5.810

6.  Targeting the value of targeted therapy.

Authors:  Joseph C Del Paggio; Richard Sullivan; Christopher M Booth
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-10-07

7.  Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules.

Authors:  Urania Dafni; Dimitris Karlis; Xanthi Pedeli; Jan Bogaerts; George Pentheroudakis; Josep Tabernero; Christoph C Zielinski; Martine J Piccart; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Nicola Jane Latino; Jean-Yves Douillard; Nathan I Cherny
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2017-10-09

8.  Work Outcomes after Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) versus Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy (IMRT) for Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Authors:  Grace L Smith; Shuangshuang Fu; Matthew S Ning; Diem-Khanh Nguyen; Paul M Busse; Robert L Foote; Adam S Garden; Gary B Gunn; Clifton D Fuller; William H Morrison; Gregory M Chronowski; Shalin J Shah; Lauren L Mayo; Jack Phan; Jay P Reddy; James W Snider; Samir H Patel; Sanford R Katz; Alexander Lin; Nasiruddin Mohammed; Roi Dagan; Nancy Y Lee; David I Rosenthal; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2021-06-25

Review 9.  Choosing wisely in oncology: necessity and obstacles.

Authors:  Piercarlo Saletti; Piero Sanna; Luca Gabutti; Michele Ghielmini
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2018-07-11

10.  Clinical benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors approved by US Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  Fei Liang; Sheng Zhang; Qin Wang; Wenfeng Li
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.