Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?

被引:48
作者
Cheng, Sierra [1 ]
McDonald, Erica J. [1 ]
Cheung, Matthew C. [1 ]
Arciero, Vanessa S. [1 ]
Qureshi, Mahin [1 ]
Jiang, Di [1 ]
Ezeife, Doreen [4 ]
Sabharwal, Mona [2 ]
Chambers, Alexandra [2 ]
Han, Dolly [2 ]
Leighl, Natasha [1 ]
Sabarre, Kelley-Anne [2 ]
Chan, Kelvin K. W. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Canadian Agcy Drugs & Technol Hlth, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Canadian Ctr Appl Res Canc Control, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6894
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework. (C) 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
引用
收藏
页码:2764 / +
页数:10
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], HEM ONC CANC APPR SA
[2]  
[Anonymous], SUMM BAS DEC SBD DOC
[3]  
[Anonymous], EUR PUBL ASS REP NAT
[4]  
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, HOW PCODR WORKS
[5]  
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, FIND A REV PCODR
[6]  
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2015, PERF METR REP
[7]  
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, 2013, PAN CAN ONC DRUG REV
[8]   A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) [J].
Cherny, N. I. ;
Sullivan, R. ;
Dafni, U. ;
Kerst, J. M. ;
Sobrero, A. ;
Zielinski, C. ;
de Vries, E. G. E. ;
Piccart, M. J. .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2015, 26 (08) :1547-1573
[9]   Multiple Dimensions of Value: Evaluative Frameworks for New Cancer Therapies [J].
Cheung, Matthew C. ;
Sabharwal, Mona ;
Chambers, Alexandra ;
Han, Dolly ;
Sabarre, Kelley-Anne ;
Chan, Kelvin .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 34 (12) :1428-+
[10]  
DeVellis R. F., 2016, SCALE DEV THEORY APP