ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2021
Considerations for Developing a Reassessment Process: Report from the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's Reassessment and Uptake Working Group.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adopting life-cycle HTA: a tumor-agnostic precision oncology index economic evaluation from publicly available reimbursement reviews.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Article
- Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab for PD-L1≥50% metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- History of trastuzumab: a case study in health technology reassessment and natural disinvestment in Veneto Region.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: A real-world population-based cohort study of resource utilization.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Access to Cancer Drugs in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pertuzumab With Trastuzumab in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer.JAMA oncology · 2022Article
- Mapping Canadian Data Assets to Generate Real-World Evidence: Lessons Learned from Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's RWE Data Working Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Building a National Reassessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration through a Simulated Reassessment Exercise.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration was established to develop a framework for generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the reassessment of cancer drugs following initial health technology assessment (HTA). The Reassessment and Uptake Working Group (RWG) is one of the five established CanREValue Working Groups. The RWG aims to develop considerations for incorporating RWE for HTA reassessment and strategies for using RWE to reassess drug funding decisions. Between February 2018 and December 2019, the RWG attended four teleconferences (with follow-up surveys) and two in-person meetings to discuss recommendations for the development of a reassessment process and potential barriers and facilitators. Modified Delphi methods were used to gather input. A draft report of recommendations (to December 2018) was shared for public consultation (December 2019 to January 2020). Initial considerations for developing a reassessment process were proposed. Specifically, reassessment can be initiated by diverse stakeholders, including decision makers from public drug plans or industry stakeholders. The reassessment process should be modelled after existing deliberation and recommendation frameworks used by HTA agencies. Proposed reassessment outcome categories include maintaining status quo, revisiting funding criteria, renegotiating price, or disinvesting. Overall, these initial considerations will serve as the basis for future advancements by the Collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.