ArticleESMO open2020
EHA evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies.
Article in ESMO open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Benefit of Multiple Myeloma Drugs at Regulatory Approval in Brazil, Europe, and the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study (2003-2024).Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Olutasidenib and Ivosidenib in Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1-Mutated Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Benefit of standard systemic treatments of solid tumours in Australia varies by indication, tumour stream, and treatment modality.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Article
- Evidence of clinical benefit of cancer medicines considered for funding in Australia.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer.ESMO open · 2023Article
- Can cancer go green? It's up to us.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Pre-approval and post-approval availability of evidence and clinical benefit of conditionally approved cancer drugs in Europe: A comparison with standard approved cancer drugs.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Review
- Two decades of targeted therapies in acute myeloid leukemia.Leukemia · 2021Review
- Measuring Clinical Benefit of Treatments for Hematologic Malignancies: Critical First Steps Accomplished-What is Next?HemaSphere · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 16 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveValue frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
methodsHere we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies.
resultsIn general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described.
conclusionsBased on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials.
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.