Value in oncology from multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: This study aims for three purposes: a) review the published MCDAs in oncology to identify the criteria considered valuable by the stakeholders, b) evaluate the adherence to best practice recommendations, and c) Propose a value tree, based on the findings of the systematic review, reflecting the most important criteria for the different stakeholders.
Material and Methods: This systematic review consisted of the following phases: identification, screening, eligibility assessment, assessment of adherence to best practices, and extraction of the information. The identification was conducted in PUBMED, EMBASE, EBSCO, SCIENCE DIRECT, SCOPUS, LILACS, and Web of Science including records from January 1st, 1990, to February 28th, 2021. The adherence to best practices in MCDA were evaluated. A new value tree was made.
Results: Thirteen articles were included. Colon, breast, and hematological cancer were the most frequently evaluated (n=10, 69,2%). Physicians and patients were the most representative participants. The value measurement approach was the most used (n=11, 84,6%). The overall adherence rate to the recommendations was 77,3%. One hundred ninety-five criteria were identified. The relevant criteria for all stakeholders were “Improvement clinical efficacy" (24,5%), "Severity of disease" (13,5%), and "Improvement of safety & tolerability." (10,3%). The physicians valued "Improvement clinical efficacy" (28,4%), "Severity of disease" (10,5%), and "Improvement of safety & tolerability." (8,4%) The most relevant criterion for the patients was "Severity of disease" (34,4%), "Improvement of clinical efficacy." (24,1%), and "Improvement of perceived health status" (13,8%). The significant criteria for administrative and academics were "Innovativeness of intervention" (37%) and "Improvement clinical efficacy" (14,8%).
Conclusion: The number of MCDAs in oncology is scarce and with moderate adherence to best practice recommendations. A value tree based on relevant criteria was proposed.
Downloads
Article Details
Accepted 2021-10-08
Published 2021-10-14
References
Hurst L, Mahtani K, Pluddemann A, Lewis S, Harvey K, Briggs A, Boyle A, Bajwa R, Haire K, Entwistle A HA and HC. Defining Healthcare in the NHS: CEBM report [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.cebm.net/2019/04/defining-value-based-healthcare-in-the-nhs/%0A1
Walraven J, Jacobs MS, Uyl-de Groot CA. Leveraging the Similarities Between Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Value-Based Healthcare. Value Heal [Internet]. 2021;0–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.010
Boyce T, Brown C. Economic and social impacts and benefits of health systems [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2019 [cited 2021 Jul 10]. p. 56. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/pubrequest
Burdiles P, Pommier AO. El Triaje En Pandemia: Fundamentos Éticos Para La Asignación De Recursos De Soporte Vital Avanzado En Escenarios De Escasez. Rev Médica Clínica Las Condes [Internet]. 2021;32(1):61–74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2020.12.004
Coronado-Vázquez V, Gómez-Salgado J. Ensenanza de ética en la distribución de los recursos y la protección de la salud para una atención equitativa y segura. Educ Medica [Internet]. 2019;20:163–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2018.01.002
Yuk-Chiu Yip J. Healthcare resource allocation in the COVID-19 pandemic: Ethical considerations from the perspective of distributive justice within public health. Public Heal Pract [Internet]. 2021;2(March):100111. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2021.100111
Noto G, Belardi P, Vainieri M. Unintended consequences of expenditure targets on resource allocation in health systems. Health Policy (New York) [Internet]. 2020;124(4):462–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.01.012
Oxholm A, Di Guida S, Gyrd-Hansen D. Allocation of health care under pay for performance: Winners and losers. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 2021;104743. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104743
Alvarez-Ossorio-Rodal A, Padilla-Fernandez B, Muller-Arteaga CA, Miglioni F, Alvarez-Ossorio-Fernandez JL, Valverde-Martínez S, et al. Impact of organ confined prostate cancer treatment on quality of life. Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Ed. 2020;44(9):630–6.
Saoud RM, Andolfi C, Aizen J, Wymer K, Burg M, Barashi N, et al. Impact of Non–guideline-directed Care on Quality of Life in Testicular Cancer Survivors. Eur Urol Focus [Internet]. 2020;1–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.10.005
Schütte K, Schulz C, Middelberg-Bisping K. Impact of gastric cancer treatment on quality of life of patients. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2021;(xxxx):101727. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2021.101727
Ferreira AR, Di Meglio A, Pistilli B, Gbenou AS, El-Mouhebb M, Dauchy S, et al. Differential impact of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy on quality of life of breast cancer survivors: a prospective patient-reported outcomes analysis. Ann Oncol [Internet]. 2019;30(11):1784–95. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz298
Battisti NML, Reed MWR, Herbert E, Morgan JL, Collins KA, Ward SE, et al. Bridging the Age Gap in breast cancer: Impact of chemotherapy on quality of life in older women with early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2021;144:269–80.
Hong YR, Salloum RG, Yadav S, Smith G, Mainous AG. Patient–Provider Discussion About Cancer Treatment Costs and Out-of-Pocket Spending: Implications for Shared Decision Making in Cancer Care. Value Heal [Internet]. 2020;23(12):1592–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.08.002
Chang C-T, Zhao W-X, Hajiyev J. An Integrated Smartphone and Tariff Plan Selection for Taxi Service Operators: MCDM and RStudio Approach. IEEE Access [Internet]. 2019;7:31457–72. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85064641281&doi=10.1109%2FACCESS.2019.2903201&partnerID=40&md5=71220f07702e19d32cdc6e8fae3f6775
ASCO - American Society of Clinical Oncolog. ASCO Value Framework [Internet]. ASCO Value Framework. 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.asco.org/practice-policy/cancer-care-initiatives/value-cancer-care
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) with NCCN Evidence BlocksTM [Internet]. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) with NCCN Evidence BlocksTM. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 28]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-with-evidence-blocks
Institue for Clinical and Economic Review. Value Assessment Framework [Internet]. Value Assessment Framework. Available from: https://icer.org/our-approach/methods-process/value-assessment-framework/#:~:text=The purpose of the value,value care for all patients.
Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, Blayney DW, Dicker AP, Ganz PA, et al. Updating the American society of clinical oncology value framework: Revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2016;34(24):2925–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2518
Boscolo PR, Callea G, Ciani O, Tarricone R. Measuring Value in Health Care: A Comparative Analysis of Value-based Frameworks. Clin Ther [Internet]. 2020;42(1):34–43. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85076842175&doi=10.1016%2Fj.clinthera.2019.11.017&partnerID=40&md5=e482088e621f8825ee6cbb266cfb8664
Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Heal J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2016 Jan;19(1):1–13.
Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kaló Z, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Heal J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2016;19(2):125–37.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan---a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016;5(1):210. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Ijadi Maghsoodi A, Kavian A, Khalilzadeh M, Brauers WKM. CLUS-MCDA: A novel framework based on cluster analysis and multiple criteria decision theory in a supplier selection problem. Comput Ind Eng [Internet]. 2018;118(March):409–22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.011
Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):456–65.
Norman R, Chalkidou K, Culyer AJ. A Health Economics Approach to US Value Frameworks: Serving the Needs of Decision Making. Vol. 21, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. United States; 2018. p. 117–8.
Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, Van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess (Rockv) [Internet]. 2001;5(5):iii-v+1-177. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0035057054&doi=10.3310%2Fhta5050&partnerID=40&md5=b6f4774b7527bc7d585719a117aa37a7
Mattiuzzi C, Lippi G. Current Cancer Epidemiology glossary. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2019;9(4):217–22.
Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends - An update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(1):16–27.
Gansen F, Klinger J, Rogowski W. MCDA-based deliberation to value health states: lessons learned from a pilot study. Health Qual Life Outcomes [Internet]. 2019;17(1):112. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1189-7
Rocque G, Miller-Sonnet E, Balch A, Stricker C, Seidman J, Stiles S, et al. Engaging multidisciplinary stakeholders to drive shared decision-making in oncology. J Palliat Care. 2019;34(1):29–31.
Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, Diaby V, Castro H, Cleemput I, et al. Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward. Value Heal [Internet]. 2019;22(11):1283–8. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85073993562&doi=10.1016%2Fj.jval.2019.06.014&partnerID=40&md5=c1599b2abc6c18442626c82f19647c1a
Hansen P, Devlin N. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Healthcare Decision-Making. Oxford Res Encycl Econ Financ. 2019;(May):1–26.
Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Heal [Internet]. 2012;15(8):1172–81. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84871246848&doi=10.1016%2Fj.jval.2012.06.015&partnerID=40&md5=11fe8ceef859cb1495f8eeafe015cda4
Kujawski E, Triantaphyllou E, Yanase J. Additive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Models: Misleading Aids for Life-Critical Shared Decision Making. Med Decis Mak. 2019 May;39(4):437–49.
Marsh K, Caro JJ, Hamed A, Zaiser E. Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients. Appl Health Econ Health Policy [Internet]. 2017;15(2):155–62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0299-1
Fowler FJJ, Levin CA, Sepucha KR. Informing and involving patients to improve the quality of medical decisions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):699–706.
Fleurence R, Selby J V, Odom-Walker K, Hunt G, Meltzer D, Slutsky JR, et al. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):393–400.
Daniels N. Just Health Care [Internet]. 1985th ed. Studies in Philosophy and Health Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/just-health-care/7914438375D7E9DC9D53D81B2AE205B9
Kuluski K, Guilcher SJT. Toward a person-centred learning health system: Understanding value from the perspectives of patients and caregivers. Healthc Pap. 2019;18(4):36–46.
Oliveira MD, Mataloto I, Kanavos P. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art. Eur J Heal Econ [Internet]. 2019;20(6):891–918. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85064604470&doi=10.1007%2Fs10198-019-01052-3&partnerID=40&md5=44668d9300bab76b2187f3afeeed0b40
Marsh KD, Sculpher M, Caro JJ, Tervonen T. The Use of MCDA in HTA: Great Potential, but More Effort Needed. Value Heal J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2018 Apr;21(4):394–7.
Porter M, Lee T. The Strategy That Will. Vol. 1277, Harvard Business Review. 2013.
Laskowski RJ. The Power of “My.” JAMA [Internet]. 2016 Mar 22;315(12):1235. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.17153
Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 2017;188:137–56. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617303933
NHS CONFEDERATION. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines. 2021.
National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Consultation Paper: Value Based Assessment of Health Technologies. 2014;1–28. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisals/VBA-TA-Methods-Guide-for-Consultation.pdf
Pitz GF, Riedel S. The content and structure of value tree representations. Acta Psychol (Amst) [Internet]. 1984;56(1):59–70. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691884900076