Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26032135›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2015

A Time-Trend Economic Analysis of Cancer Drug Trials.

Sonya Cressman, George P Browman, Jeffrey S Hoch, Laurel Kovacic, Stuart J Peacock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The dark side of immunotherapy.Annals of translational medicine · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sonya CressmanCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Vancouver Island Cancer Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada scressman@bccrc.ca.
George P BrowmanCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Vancouver Island Cancer Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Jeffrey S HochCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Vancouver Island Cancer Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Laurel KovacicCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Vancouver Island Cancer Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Stuart J PeacockCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Vancouver Island Cancer Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScientific advances have led to the discovery of novel treatments with high prices. The cost to publicly fund high-cost drugs may threaten the sustainability of drug budgets in different health care systems. In oncology, there are concerns that health-benefit gains are diminishing over time and that the economic evidence to support funding decisions is too limited.

methodsTo assess the additional costs and benefits gained from oncology drugs over time, we used treatment protocols and efficacy results from U.S. Food and Drug Administration records to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios for drugs approved to treat first- and second-line metastatic or advanced breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer during the years 1994-2013. We assessed reimbursement recommendations reached by health technology assessment agencies in the U.K., Australia, and Canada.

resultsCost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for 50 drugs approved by the U.S. regulator. The more recent approvals were often based on surrogate efficacy outcomes and had extremely high costs, often triple the costs of drugs approved in previous years. Over time, the effectiveness gains have increased for some cancer indications; however, for other indications (non-small cell lung and second-line colorectal cancer), the magnitude of gains in effectiveness decreased. Reimbursement recommendations for drugs with the highest cost-effectiveness ratios were the most inconsistent.

conclusionEvaluation of the clinical benefits that oncology drugs offer as a function of their cost has become highly complex, and for some clinical indications, health benefits are diminishing over time. There is an urgent need for better economic evidence from oncology drug trials and systematic processes to inform funding decisions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: High-cost oncology drugs may threaten the ability of health care systems to provide access to promising new drugs for patients. In order to make better drug-funding decisions and enable equitable access to breakthrough treatments, discussions in the oncology community should include economic evidence. This study summarizes the extra benefits and costs of newly approved drugs from pivotal trials during the postgenomic era of drug discovery. The reader will gain an appreciation of the need for economic evidence to make better drug-reimbursement decisions and the dynamics at play in today's oncology drug market.

Indexed as

Drug CostsAntineoplastic AgentsAustraliaBreast NeoplasmsCanadaCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungClinical Trials as TopicColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementLung NeoplasmsUnited StatesAntineoplastic AgentsBiomedicalCost-benefit analysisDrug costsEconomicsMedical oncologyPharmaceuticalTechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID26032135
PMCPMC4492232

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.