4 5 9 1 1

论文已发表


注册即可获取德孚的最新动态



IF 收录期刊












更多详情 >>



停止接受任何荟萃分析文章 (Meta-analysis)

请注意:我们所有期刊已于 2019 年 4 月 1 日停止接受任何荟萃分析 (Meta-analysis)文章的提交。


会员计划

我们很高兴为机构提供一种切实的方法以支持开放获取并鼓励教师和研究人员通过开放获取模式尽可能广泛地传播他们的作品。

更多详情 >>

 

视频

Relative value assessment: characterizing the benefit of oncology therapies through diverse survival metrics from a US perspective

 

Authors Macaulay R, Ahuja A, Ademisoye E, Juarez-Garcia A, Shaw JW

Received 23 June 2018

Accepted for publication 29 October 2018

Published 19 March 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 199—219

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S177343

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Justinn Cochran

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Samer Hamidi

Objectives: The introduction of innovative, high-cost oncology treatments, coupled with mounting budgetary pressures, necessitates value trade-offs across cancer types. Defining value is critical to informing decision-making. A cost-value analysis tool was used to assess relative clinical value from a US perspective using multiple outcome metrics for a variety of metastatic cancers.
Methods: Literature published (January 1, 2000–August 31, 2016) was reviewed to identify outcome metrics for approved treatments for metastatic cancers. Data were extracted or derived for median and mean overall survival (OS), landmark survival rates, and other survival metrics, and compared across treatments vs their respective trial comparators, with and without considering costs.
Results: Reported survival metrics varied by agent within cancer type. For treatment of prostate cancer, abiraterone yielded the highest improvement in 1-year survival rate (13.7%, previously treated), whereas enzalutamide yielded the highest median OS improvement (4.8 months, previously treated) and sipuleucel-T, the highest mean OS improvement (3.6 months, previously untreated) vs their respective trial comparators. For treatment of non-small cell lung cancer vs their respective trial comparators, nivolumab yielded the highest improvement in mean OS (11.9 months) and 3-year survival rate (12.6%), each in previously treated squamous disease, whereas afatinib yielded the highest median OS improvement (4.1 months, previously untreated EGFR del19  and L858R  mutants). Cost-value analysis results varied with the applied survival metric.
Conclusions: Although median OS is the traditional gold standard oncology efficacy metric, it fails to capture long-term survival benefits—the ultimate goal of cancer treatment—offered by new treatment modalities. Diverse metrics are needed for comprehensive value assessments of cancer therapies.
Keywords: value framework, value assessment, immuno-oncology, cost-value analysis


 

摘要视频链接:Relative value assessment