Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36005193›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments.

Dario Trapani, Kiu Tay-Teo, Megan E Tesch, Felipe Roitberg, Manju Sengar, Sara C Altuna, Michael J Hassett, Armando A Genazzani, Aaron S Kesselheim, Giuseppe Curigliano

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Dario TrapaniEuropean Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Kiu Tay-TeoDepartment of Health Products Policy and Standards, World Health Organization, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
Megan E TeschDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6568-726X
Felipe RoitbergMedical Oncology Service, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo 01308-050, Brazil.
Manju SengarTata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai 400094, India.
Sara C AltunaOncomédica C. A., Caracas 1040, Venezuela.
Michael J HassettDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Armando A GenazzaniDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Università Del Piemonte Orientale, 28100 Novara, Italy.
Aaron S KesselheimProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 1620, USA.
Giuseppe CuriglianoEuropean Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1781-2518

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data.

methodsMultiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review.

resultsA lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks.

conclusionA lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalBiomarkersCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality of LifeBiomarkersaccelerated approvalcancer medicinesdis-investmentshealth economicshealth technology assessmentMCBSvalue

Identifiers

PMID36005193
PMCPMC9406873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.