Pcn336 Parallel Scientific Advice From Nice and Cadth: Would One Submission Fit All?

Abstract

Objectives: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Europe, accounting for 21% of all deaths. In recent years, several studies have been conducted to gather information on preferences in cancer treatment. Especially discrete choice experiments (DCE) are of growing importance in the field of preference measurement. This study aimed at aggregating which aspects of cancer treatment were included in DCEs and which were most important for patients, physicians, other healthcare professionals, and the general population. Methods: A systematic literature search (up to April 2019) was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify DCEs investigating preferences in cancer treatment. Inclusion criteria were: DCE as elicitation method, focus on cancer treatment, study conducted in Europe, and journal articles published in English. Identified studies were analyzed in terms of year of publication, study country, study participants, specific indication and relative importance of attributes, which were classified into specific attributes such as outcome and procedure. Results: A total of n=25 studies were identified that elicited preferences for cancer treatment using a DCE. Seven studies were multi-country studies including two or more countries and most of them were conducted in the UK (n=13), Germany (n=11), and France (n=6). In about two thirds of the identified DCEs, patients were the study subject. Preferences were assessed most frequently for prostate cancer (n=4), basal cell carcinoma (n=4), and lung cancer (n=4). Outcome attributes, such as progression free survival or the occurrence of adverse events showed the highest relative importance in most of the studies, regardless of the study subjects. Conclusions: Although the type of procedure, the organization, costs, and patient or disease-specific attributes had a significant impact on the preferences in cancer treatment for participants, outcome attributes were of highest importance when choosing different cancer treatment options.

Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia

“…We showed that greater detail in reporting of survival analysis methods, including extrapolation, statistical analyses, and validation of results, is needed, in order to support greater consistency in decision making. To the authors’ knowledge, at the time of writing, no previous studies [ 1 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 26 , 27 , 28 ] have specifically examined how HTA agencies evaluate and report on economic evaluations submitted by manufacturers for reimbursement.…”