ReviewAdvances in therapy2025
A Review of the Utilization of Relative Dose Intensity and Dose Delay Factor in Health Technology Appraisals of Oncology Drugs in Solid Tumors.
Review in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Age-Dependent Toxicity Patterns in Medulloblastoma: A Comparative Analysis of Treatment-Related Adverse Events Between Pediatric and Adult Populations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRelative dose intensity (RDI) and dose delay factor (DDF) are important variables in cost-effectiveness analyses of oncology drugs that impact incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). However, there is little published evidence on how RDI and DDF affect ICERs and how the calculation and application of these measures vary across health technology appraisals (HTAs). To understand this further, we analyzed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) HTAs.
methodsThe NICE website was manually searched for HTAs (submissions, Evidence Review Group appraisals, and company responses) of treatments in solid tumors from date of inception to March 31, 2024. Data were extracted on RDI/DDF calculation methods, application in economic models, HTA body feedback, and impact on ICERs.
resultsOf 265 HTAs sourced, 63 were identified for further review based on inclusion of RDI/DDF variables. Seven HTAs for solid tumors and 12 breast cancer HTAs were analyzed; breast cancer was chosen as a model as it is a leading cause of cancer mortality. RDI ranged from 85% to 100% across all HTAs. Approaches to calculating and applying RDI varied widely in these models, with some distinguishing between dose reductions, delays, and missed doses, while others used a single RDI metric. For combination therapies, RDI was sometimes applied differently across components. The NICE appraisal committees frequently raised concerns about lack of transparency in RDI calculations and assumptions around delayed/missed doses and wastage. Excluding RDI adjustments generally increased ICERs by 5%-10%.
conclusionsThere is heterogeneity in how RDI and dose modifications are handled in UK oncology HTAs. Areas for improvement that can support more informed HTA decision making include developing standardized methods for handling RDI/DDF that better reflect clinical practice, providing clearer regulatory guidance, conducting real-world dose-intensity studies, improving data collection, and creating tools to consistently incorporate dose data into economic models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40906051What 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.