Use of Intermediate Endpoints in the Economic Evaluation of New Treatments for Advanced Cancer and Methods Adopted When Suitable Overall Survival Data are Not Available

被引:2
作者
Beauchemin, Catherine [1 ]
Lapierre, Marie-Eve [1 ]
Letarte, Nathalie [1 ,2 ]
Yelle, Louise [3 ]
Lachaine, Jean [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Montreal, Fac Pharm, Stn Ctr Ville, POB 6128, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada
[2] Univ Montreal, Ctr Hosp Univ Montreal, Notre Dame Hosp, Hlth Ctr,Dept Pharm, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Univ Montreal, Hlth Ctr, Ctr Hosp Univ Montreal, Dept Med,Notre Dame Hosp, Montreal, PQ, Canada
关键词
METASTATIC BREAST-CANCER; COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CELL LUNG-CANCER; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; ISPOR TASK-FORCE; 1ST-LINE TREATMENT; PROGRESSION-FREE; PLUS CAPECITABINE; TARGETED THERAPY; GOLD-STANDARD;
D O I
10.1007/s40273-016-0401-4
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives This study assessed the use of intermediate endpoints in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer and the methodological approaches adopted when overall survival (OS) data are unavailable or of limited use. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced cancer published between 2003 and 2013. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses expressed in cost per life-year gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year using an intermediate endpoint as an outcome measure were eligible. Characteristics of selected studies were extracted and comprised population, treatment of interest, comparator, line of treatment, study perspective, and time horizon. Use of intermediate endpoints and methods adopted when OS data were lacking were analyzed. Results In total, 7219 studies were identified and 100 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Intermediate endpoints mostly used were progression-free survival and time to progression, accounting for 92 % of included studies. OS data were unavailable for analysis in nearly 25 % of economic evaluations. In the absence of OS data, studies most commonly assumed an equal risk of death for all treatment groups. Other methods included use of indirect comparison based on numerous assumptions, use of a proxy for OS, consultation with clinical experts, and use of published external information from different treatment settings. Conclusion Intermediate endpoints are widely used in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer in order to estimate OS. Currently, different methods are used in the absence of suitable OS data and the choice of an appropriate method depends on many factors including the data availability.
引用
收藏
页码:889 / 900
页数:12
相关论文
共 55 条
[21]  
Giuliani Giovanni, 2010, Lung Cancer, V69 Suppl 1, pS11, DOI 10.1016/S0169-5002(10)70133-1
[22]   Rituximab for the First-Line Maintenance Treatment of Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma A NICE Single Technology Appraisal [J].
Greenhalgh, Janette ;
Bagust, Adrian ;
Boland, Angela ;
Blundell, Michaela ;
Oyee, James ;
Beale, Sophie ;
Dundar, Yenal ;
Hockenhull, Juliet ;
Proudlove, Chris ;
Chu, Patrick .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2013, 31 (05) :403-413
[23]   Conducting Indirect-Treatment-Comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 2 [J].
Hoaglin, David C. ;
Hawkins, Neil ;
Jansen, Jeroen P. ;
Scott, David A. ;
Itzler, Robbin ;
Cappelleri, Joseph C. ;
Boersma, Cornelis ;
Thompson, David ;
Larholt, Kay M. ;
Diaz, Mireya ;
Barrett, Annabel .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :429-437
[24]   Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab, Cetuximab Plus Irinotecan, and Panitumumab for Third and Further Lines of Treatment for KRAS Wild-Type Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer [J].
Hoyle, Martin ;
Peters, Jaime ;
Crathorne, Louise ;
Jones-Hughes, Tracey ;
Cooper, Chris ;
Napier, Mark ;
Hyde, Chris .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2013, 16 (02) :288-296
[25]   Methods for Adjusting for Bias Due to Crossover in Oncology Trials [J].
Ishak, K. Jack ;
Proskorovsky, Irina ;
Korytowsky, Beata ;
Sandin, Rickard ;
Faivre, Sandrine ;
Valle, Juan .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2014, 32 (06) :533-546
[26]   Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1 [J].
Jansen, Jeroen P. ;
Fleurence, Rachael ;
Devine, Beth ;
Itzler, Robbin ;
Barrett, Annabel ;
Hawkins, Neil ;
Lee, Karen ;
Boersma, Cornelis ;
Annemans, Lieven ;
Cappelleri, Joseph C. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :417-428
[27]   Analyzing Overall Survival in Randomized Controlled Trials with Crossover and Implications for Economic Evaluation [J].
Jonsson, Linus ;
Sandin, Rickard ;
Ekman, Mattias ;
Ramsberg, Joakim ;
Charbonneau, Claudie ;
Huang, Xin ;
Jonsson, Bengt ;
Weinstein, Milton C. ;
Drummond, Michael .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2014, 17 (06) :707-713
[28]   A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of letrozole followed by tamoxifen versus tamoxifen followed by letrozole for postmenopausal advanced breast cancer [J].
Karnon, J ;
Johnston, SRD ;
Jones, T ;
Glendenning, A .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2003, 14 (11) :1629-1633
[29]   Randomized controlled trials in the era of molecular oncology: methodology, biomarkers, and end points [J].
Kay, A. ;
Higgins, J. ;
Day, A. G. ;
Meyer, R. M. ;
Booth, C. M. .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2012, 23 (06) :1646-1651
[30]   Pazopanib for the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma A NICE Single Technology Appraisal [J].
Kilonzo, Mary ;
Hislop, Jenni ;
Elders, Andrew ;
Fraser, Cynthia ;
Bissett, Donald ;
McClinton, Samuel ;
Mowatt, Graham ;
Vale, Luke .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2013, 31 (01) :15-24