ArticleThe oncologist2025
Twenty-one-year report from the Danish Health Authority Expert Advisory Panel for review of treatment of 10 000 cancer patients.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with hard-to-treat or rare cancers and those not responding to standard-of-care (SoC) treatment have unmet needs. Limited access to novel drugs is an increasing additional challenge. In 2003, the Danish government adopted a Health Act to ensure that treatment of patients with life-threatening disease could be reevaluated by independent experts. The Danish Health Authority (DHA) set up an Expert Advisory Panel to provide advice on possibilities for further treatment of patients, including treatment not approved nationally. A few years later, clinical units were established that could offer unestablished treatment to patients by referral from the Panel. The treatment was first reimbursed by the Government and later by regional authorities. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe present the structure, workflow, and impact of the Health Act for 21 years for patients with cancer. Annual reports from the DHA were the primary data source.
results11 034 cases from 9603 cancer patients were evaluated by the Panel from 2003 to 2023, representing a median of 372 unique cases yearly. In 53%, the Panel advised on further treatment in Denmark, and of these, 56% were recommended nationally nonapproved treatment, 21% SoC treatment or workup, and 19% clinical trial participation. In 4.5% of cases, advice was given on treatment abroad. A significant decline in admissions to the Panel from a peak of 1167 patients in 2008 to 3-400 yearly from 2012 to 2017 followed the conversion of nonapproved treatments to SoC practice. A shift in drug reimbursement, independent of Panel advise, reduced the clinical impact and explained the further decline observed in admissions lately to only 51 patients in 2023.
conclusionsThis unique national scheme provided early access to treatment for patients with no further SoC options and facilitated the introduction of new cancer treatments, initiation of clinical trials, and establishment of trial units in the country. The scheme may be adapted to other countries with a public healthcare system. Results of the current report indicate that impact is dependent on delivering clinical units and reimbursement associated with the recommended treatment.
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.