Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26026162›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2015

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 Cherny, R Sullivan, U Dafni, J M Kerst, A Sobrero, C Zielinski, E G E de Vries, M J Piccart

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 309 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
309citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

309 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Measuring financial toxicity in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

249 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

N I ChernyCancer Pain and Palliative Medicine Service, Department of Medical Oncology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel mcbs@esmo.org.
R SullivanKings Health Partners Integrated Cancer Centre, King's College London, Institute of Cancer Policy, London, UK.
U DafniUniversity of Athens and Frontiers of Science Foundation-Hellas, Athens, Greece.
J M KerstDepartment of Medical Oncology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital.
A SobreroDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Martino IST, Genova, Italy.
C ZielinskiDivision of Oncology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
E G E de VriesDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
M J PiccartJules Bordet Institute, UniversitéLibre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHumansNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CareSocieties, MedicalTreatment Outcomeclinical benefitESMOtool

Identifiers

PMID26026162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.