Observational studyBMJ open2025
Associations between clinical benefits of cancer drugs and incremental quality-adjusted life years used in reimbursement decisions in Australia, Canada, England and China: an observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the association between incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) predicted in economic evaluations and clinical benefits assessed by the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), examining how accurately predicted QALYs reflect actual clinical outcomes in cancer drug reimbursement decisions.
designCross-sectional observational study.
settingHealth technology assessment (HTA) documents from Australia, Canada and England, supplemented by published economic evaluations from China. Economic evaluation data were collected from database inception to 31 December 2023.
participantsA total of 240 economic evaluation documents were identified from Australia (n=61), Canada (n=114) and England (n=65), along with 106 published studies from China, all focused on solid tumour cancer drugs with publicly available ESMO-MCBS scores. Documents were included based on completeness and consistency of data sources; those that were incomplete or relied on external controls were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the incremental QALYs from manufacturer submissions and HTA agency reevaluations. Secondary outcomes included associations stratified by data maturity, country, treatment setting and reimbursement recommendations.
resultsIncremental QALYs showed a moderate positive correlation with ESMO-MCBS scores (Spearman's ρ=0.42, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.53). All country-specific correlations were statistically significant: England (ρ=0.53), Australia (ρ=0.37), Canada (ρ=0.39) and China (ρ=0.49), all p<0.01. Stronger associations were observed in HTA agency reevaluations (adjusted OR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.77) compared with manufacturer submissions (OR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.34). Analyses limited to mature data (>70% events observed) demonstrated the strongest association (OR=1.53, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.13). Among countries, England exhibited the highest association (OR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.74), followed by China (OR=1.30, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.62), Australia (OR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.63), and Canada (OR=1.15, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.26).
conclusionsThis study highlights a moderate alignment between incremental QALYs derived from economic evaluations and clinical benefit scores, emphasising the importance of rigorous reassessment, mature survival data and independent validation processes. Future research should explore strategies for enhancing data maturity and incorporating independent review mechanisms to strengthen healthcare decision-making globally.
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.