Suppr超能文献

肿瘤学中的价值医疗:视角在新兴价值框架中的重要性。

Value-based medicine in oncology: the importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks.

作者信息

Campolina Alessandro Gonçalves

机构信息

Centro de Investigacao Translacional em Oncologia, Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo (ICESP), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.

出版信息

Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018 Dec 10;73(suppl 1):e470s. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2018/e470s.

Abstract

Recently, professional and healthcare-related entities have launched frameworks designed to assess the value of cancer innovations in multistakeholder decision processes. Among the most visible entities that propose and implement value frameworks in oncology are the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). However, these value frameworks have been criticized for conceptual inconsistencies, inability to include a greater variety of value criteria, and inadequate explanation of the uncertainty approach used in the modeling process. On the other hand, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a set of methods and processes that allow the multiple criteria involved in a decision to be explicitly addressed. This approach allows the identification of relevant decision criteria, gathering of evidence based on scientific literature, attribution of weights to the criteria and scores to the evidence raised, and aggregation of the weighted scores to constitute a global metric of value. The purpose of this article is to review the main features of these value frameworks in oncology and the importance of perspective for framework readiness to support healthcare decision-making based on MCDA methodology.

摘要

最近,专业机构和医疗相关实体已经推出了旨在评估多方利益相关者决策过程中癌症创新价值的框架。在肿瘤学领域提出并实施价值框架的最知名实体包括欧洲医学肿瘤学会(ESMO)、美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)、纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心(MSKCC)和美国国立综合癌症网络(NCCN)。然而,这些价值框架因概念不一致、无法纳入更多样化的价值标准以及对建模过程中使用的不确定性方法解释不足而受到批评。另一方面,多标准决策分析(MCDA)是一组方法和过程,允许明确处理决策中涉及的多个标准。这种方法能够识别相关的决策标准,基于科学文献收集证据,为标准赋予权重并为提出的证据打分,以及汇总加权分数以构成一个整体价值指标。本文的目的是回顾肿瘤学中这些价值框架的主要特征以及视角对于基于MCDA方法支持医疗决策的框架准备情况的重要性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1c30/6256994/33134ed9b121/cln-73-470s-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Value-based medicine in oncology: the importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks.
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018 Dec 10;73(suppl 1):e470s. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2018/e470s.
2
Approaches to Capturing Value in Oncology.
Recent Results Cancer Res. 2019;213:85-108. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01207-6_7.
3
Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Jun;23(6-a Suppl):S34-S48. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.6-a.s34.
4
Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):200-205. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
6
Review of Recent US Value Frameworks-A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [6].
Value Health. 2018 Feb;21(2):155-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.011.
8
Three Sets of Case Studies Suggest Logic and Consistency Challenges with Value Frameworks.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):193-199. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.012.
10
Clinical benefit and cost of breakthrough cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
Cancer. 2020 Oct 1;126(19):4390-4399. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33095. Epub 2020 Jul 22.

引用本文的文献

1
The implementation of value-based frameworks, clinical care pathways, and alternative payment models for cancer care in the United States.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023 Sep;29(9):999-1008. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.22352. Epub 2023 Jun 15.
4
Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 18;18(6):3139. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063139.

本文引用的文献

1
[Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology resource allocation and assessment: so far and so near?].
Cad Saude Publica. 2017 Oct 26;33(10):e00045517. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00045517.
2
Advancing Value Assessment in the United States: A Multistakeholder Perspective.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):299-307. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.030.
3
Value to Whom? The Patient Voice in the Value Discussion.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):286-291. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.014.
4
Cost-Effectiveness and Dynamic Efficiency: Does the Solution Lie Within?
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):240-243. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.004.
5
Developing a Value Framework: The Need to Reflect the Opportunity Costs of Funding Decisions.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):234-239. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.021.
6
Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):200-205. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
7
Evaluating Frameworks That Provide Value Measures for Health Care Interventions.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):185-192. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.013.
9
Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: Revisions and Reflections in Response to Comments Received.
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 20;34(24):2925-34. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2518. Epub 2016 May 31.
10
Utility of Cancer Value Frameworks for Patients, Payers, and Physicians.
JAMA. 2016 May 17;315(19):2069-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.4915.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验