Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSoon, JA
dc.contributor.authorTo, YH
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, M
dc.contributor.authorTrapani, K
dc.contributor.authorAscierto, PA
dc.contributor.authorAthan, S
dc.contributor.authorBrown, MP
dc.contributor.authorBurge, M
dc.contributor.authorHaydon, A
dc.contributor.authorHughes, B
dc.contributor.authorItchins, M
dc.contributor.authorJohn, T
dc.contributor.authorKao, S
dc.contributor.authorKoopman, M
dc.contributor.authorLi, BT
dc.contributor.authorLong, GV
dc.contributor.authorLoree, JM
dc.contributor.authorMarkman, B
dc.contributor.authorMeniawy, TM
dc.contributor.authorMenzies, AM
dc.contributor.authorNott, L
dc.contributor.authorPavlakis, N
dc.contributor.authorPetrella, TM
dc.contributor.authorPopat, S
dc.contributor.authorTie, J
dc.contributor.authorXu, W
dc.contributor.authorYip, D
dc.contributor.authorZalcberg, J
dc.contributor.authorSolomon, BJ
dc.contributor.authorGibbs, P
dc.contributor.authorMcArthur, GA
dc.contributor.authorFranchini, F
dc.contributor.authorIJzerman, M
dc.coverage.spatialEngland
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-16T09:30:23Z
dc.date.available2024-02-16T09:30:23Z
dc.date.issued2023-12-01
dc.identifierARTN 100441
dc.identifierS2213-5383(23)00058-9
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Cancer Policy, 2023, 38 pp. 100441 -en_US
dc.identifier.issn2213-5383
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/6157
dc.identifier.eissn2213-5383
dc.identifier.eissn2213-5383
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent100441 -
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCI LTDen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Cancer Policy
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0en_US
dc.subjectBiomedical
dc.subjectCancer
dc.subjectColorectal cancer
dc.subjectCommunity involvement
dc.subjectDecision making
dc.subjectHealth care costs
dc.subjectHealth policy
dc.subjectHealth priorities
dc.subjectMelanoma
dc.subjectNon-small cell lung cancer
dc.subjectTechnology assessment
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectQuality of Life
dc.subjectCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
dc.subjectAustralia
dc.subjectLung Neoplasms
dc.subjectEvidence-Based Medicine
dc.subjectPharmaceutical Preparations
dc.titleA tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.en_US
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-08-17
dc.date.updated2024-02-16T09:29:40Z
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441en_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-12-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38008488
pubs.organisational-groupICR
pubs.organisational-groupICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-groupICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-groupICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies
pubs.organisational-groupICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Thoracic Oncology
pubs.organisational-groupICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Thoracic Oncology/Thoracic Oncology (hon.)
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441
pubs.volume38
dc.contributor.icrauthorPopat, Sanjay
icr.provenanceDeposited by Mr Arek Surman on 2024-02-16. Deposit type is initial. No. of files: 1. Files: 1-s2.0-S2213538323000589-main.pdf


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0