Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40447425›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Development of a framework on the incorporation of real-world evidence (RWE) into cancer drug funding decisions in Canada: the Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration.

Kelvin Kar-Wing Chan, Pam Takhar, William K Evans, Rebecca E Mercer, Avram Denburg, Jaclyn Beca, Caroline Muñoz, Scott Gavura, Winson Y Cheung, Jeffrey Hoch and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Kelvin Kar-Wing ChanTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada kelvin.chan@sunnybrook.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2501-3057
Pam TakharCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0328-6326
William K EvansDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca E MercerCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9264-7797
Avram DenburgInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0039-0742
Jaclyn BecaMORSE Consulting Inc, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Caroline MuñozCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Scott GavuraOntario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Winson Y CheungCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jeffrey HochInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Erica CraigNew Brunswick Cancer Network, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
Claire de OliveiraCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3961-6008
Marc GeirnaertCancer Care Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Maureen TrudeauSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tarry AhujaCanada's Drug Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stuart PeacockCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wei Fang DaiTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wanrudee IsaranuwatchaiInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8368-6065
Yvonne BombardInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9516-4539
Carole ChambersAlberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Craig C EarleTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Riaz AlviSaskatchewan Cancer Agency, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Petros PechlivanoglouChild Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mina TadrousWomen's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value in Cancer (CanREValue) Collaboration was established in response to growing interest in using real-world evidence (RWE) to support health technology assessment (HTA). CanREValue has developed a framework to generate and use RWE to inform cancer drug funding decisions. DESIGN AND

participantsThe RWE framework was developed using a multistage, multistakeholder approach. First, an environmental scan and qualitative study were conducted to understand the current state and key stakeholder perspectives on RWE. Next, five formal working groups (WGs) were established consisting of stakeholders with cancer drug funding expertise including clinicians, patients, methodologists, payers, regulatory decision-makers and data analysts. Through stakeholder consultations, including modified Delphi exercises and workshops, each WG developed specific framework components and identified facilitators and barriers that may impact the uptake of RWE.

settingThe CanREValue Collaboration consisted of membership and participation from stakeholders and expertise from across Canada. Central research operations were managed from Toronto, Ontario, Canada. OUTCOMES: Development of an RWE framework reflective of the needs and perspectives of stakeholders directly involved and/or impacted by cancer drug funding decisions across Canada.

resultsThrough an iterative process, a comprehensive RWE framework was developed that outlined the end-to-end processes necessary for the generation and use of RWE for HTA reassessment in Canada. The framework consists of four phases that uses various tools, templates and processes, which can be applied as a whole or in part. A diverse range of stakeholders and expertise is involved in the decision-making of each phase of the process: Phase I: identification, selection and prioritisation of RWE questions; phase II: initiating and planning the RWE study; phase III: conducting the RWE study and phase IV: conducting reassessment.

conclusionsAs the cancer drug funding landscape continues to evolve, the need for RWE to support evidence-based policy reform, pricing and reallocation of funding from low to high value settings is crucial. We have developed a framework that is adaptable and responsive to the changing landscape. The tools, templates and processes within the framework can be applied by various stakeholder groups in whole or in part to support cancer drug funding decision-making in Canada and can be adapted for use in other jurisdictions.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCanadaDecision MakingDelphi TechniqueEvidence-Based MedicineHumansQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationAntineoplastic AgentsDecision MakingHealth policyONCOLOGYReimbursement Mechanisms

Identifiers

PMID40447425
PMCPMC12128457

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.