Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40338216›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2025

Twenty-one-year report from the Danish Health Authority Expert Advisory Panel for review of treatment of 10 000 cancer patients.

Morten Ladekarl, Mette Louise Mørk, Emma Skotte Albertsen, Dorte Nielsen, Ulrik Lassen, Morten Mau-Sørensen, Claus Malta Nielsen, Anders Jakobsen, Hans von der Maase

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Morten LadekarlDepartment of Oncology and Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0182-1228
Mette Louise MørkDanish Health Authority, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Emma Skotte AlbertsenDanish Health Authority, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dorte NielsenDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8766-8729
Ulrik LassenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1172 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3865-4574
Morten Mau-SørensenDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2235-1250
Claus Malta NielsenDanish Health Authority, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anders JakobsenDepartment of Oncology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 7100 Vejle, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2110-2615
Hans von der MaaseDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1172 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8600-6574

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsAdvisory CommitteesDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleclinical trial unitsdrug reimbursementequal drug accessexperimental treatmentregulatory drug approvalsecond opinion of treatment

Identifiers

PMID40338216
PMCPMC12060716

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.