Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31043821›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2019

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

J Keech, J Beca, A Eisen, E Kennedy, J Kim, C T Kouroukis, G Darling, S E Ferguson, A Finelli, T M Petrella and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

J KeechCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
J BecaCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
A EisenCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
E KennedyCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
J KimCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
C T KouroukisCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
G DarlingCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
S E FergusonCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
A FinelliCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
T M PetrellaCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
J R PerryCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
K ChanCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.
S GavuraCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions. Methods: Cancer site-specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment. Results: Since its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug-indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration. Conclusions: The cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisFinancing, OrganizedHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsOncologistsOntarioAntineoplastic Agentsclinician-led funding submissionsDrug fundinghealth technology assessmentprioritization

Identifiers

PMID31043821
PMCPMC6476458

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.