Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37413761›Full record

ArticleESMO open2023

Access to novel cancer medicines in four countries in Central and Eastern Europe in relation to clinical benefit.

T Hofmarcher, P Szilagyiova, A Gustafsson, T Dolezal, P Rutkowski, C Baxter, E Karamousouli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Cancer mortality in Europe in 2020, and an overview of trends since 1990.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Quality of Life Among Polish Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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

7 authors.

T HofmarcherIHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: thomas.hofmarcher@ihe.se.
P SzilagyiovaMSD, s.r.o., Bratislava, Slovakia.
A GustafssonIHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, Lund, Sweden.
T DolezalValue Outcomes s.r.o., Praha 2, Czech Republic.
P RutkowskiMaria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
C BaxterMSD (UK) Limited, London, UK.
E KaramousouliMSD Greece, Alimos, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlmost 100 novel cancer medicines have been approved in Europe over the last decade. Limited public health care resources in countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) call for a prioritization of access to effective medicines. We investigated how both reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement correlate with the magnitude of clinical benefit provided by novel medicines in four selected countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia). MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 124 indications of 51 cancer medicines with marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency in 2011-2020 were included and followed up until 2022. Data on reimbursement status and waiting time to reimbursement (i.e. time from marketing authorization to national reimbursement approval) were collected for each country. Data were analyzed in relation to clinical benefit status (i.e. substantial versus nonsubstantial clinical benefit) of indications according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

resultsThe degree of reimbursement differed between countries with 64% of indications with reimbursement in Czechia, 40% in Hungary, 51% in Poland, and 19% in Slovakia. In all countries, a significantly greater proportion of indications with a substantial clinical benefit was reimbursed (P < 0.05). The median waiting time to reimbursement ranged from 27 months in Poland to 37 months in Hungary. No significant differences in waiting time in relation to clinical benefit were observed in any country (P = 0.25-0.84).

conclusionsCancer medicines with a substantial clinical benefit are more likely to be reimbursed in all four CEE countries. Waiting times to reimbursement are equally long for medicines with or without a substantial clinical benefit, indicating a lack of prioritization of fast access to medicines delivering a substantial benefit. Incorporation of the ESMO-MCBS in reimbursement assessments and decisions could aid in better utilization of limited resources to deliver more effective cancer care.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsEuropeHumansMedical OncologyPolandcancer medicinesCentral and Eastern Europedrug accessESMO-MCBSreimbursement decision

Identifiers

PMID37413761
PMCPMC10485399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.