ArticleBritish journal of cancer2000
New treatments for advanced cancer: an approach to prioritization.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2018Pooled it
- Biomarkers-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Toripalimab Plus Chemotherapy for Patients with Treatment-Naive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- First-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapyFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- The Budget Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies Used to Treat Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Minas Gerais, Brazil.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in Metastatic Non-Squamous and Squamous NSCLC Patients With PD-L1 Expression ≥ 50.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Review
- Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets.Frontiers in public health · 2018Review
- Adaptive Pathways: Possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Review
- Longitudinal trends in use and costs of targeted therapies for common cancers in Taiwan: a retrospective observational study.BMJ open · 2016Observational
- Role of the hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committee in detecting and regulating off-label drug use.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The allocation of funding for new anticancer treatments within the UK has not kept pace with demand. Clinicians find themselves restricted in the use of licensed drugs which they feel are in the best interests of individual patients. Against this, health authorities have a duty to ensure that scarce resources are used equitably to meet the needs of the local population as a whole. Differential levels of funding for new treatments across the country have led to concerns about rationing by postcode. This paper outlines an approach to the prioritization of new treatment for advanced cancer developed jointly by clinicians and health authorities in South London. The approach involves evidence reviews and consensus meetings. Existing and new treatments are rated on a four-point 'relative effectiveness scale', which takes account of the impact of the treatment on quality of life and on survival. The strength of evidence supporting each effectiveness rating is also classified. Health Authorities have used these ratings to determine overall funding levels, while leaving decisions on individual patients to the relevant Trusts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.