Which cancer clinical trials should be considered for economic evaluation? Selection criteria from the National Cancer Institute of Canada's Working Group on Economic Analysis

Chronic Diseases in Canada

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 102-107

  Evans, William K ^a   Coyle, Douglas ^b   Gafni, Amiram ^c   Walker, Hugh ^d  

^a CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d KINGSTON GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Cost; Economic evaluation

Indexed keywords

CANADA; CANCER RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION; REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANADA; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; CLINICAL TRIALS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 0742284013     PISSN: 02288699     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Lewis SJ, Donaldson C, Mitton C, Currie G. The future of health care in Canada. BMJ 2001;323:926-29.
2. Health Canada. Economic burden of illness in Canada, 1998. Ottawa: Health Canada, Cat No. H21-136/1998E.
3. Earle CC, Coyle D, Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness analysis in oncology. Ann Oncol 1998;9:475-82.
4. Goddard M, Drummond M. The economic evaluation of cancer treatments and programmes. Eur J Cancer 1991;27:1191-6.
5. Bennett CL, Armitage JL, Buchner D, Gulati S. Economic analysis in phase III clinical cancer trials. Cancer Invest 1994;12:336-42.
6. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1997.
7. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.
8. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors. URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/technicalguidanceformanufacturersandsponsors.pdf.
9. Detsky AS. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 1993;3:354-61.
10. Bennett CL, Armitage JL, LeSage S, Gulati SC, Armitage JO, Gorin NC. Economic analyses of clinical trials in cancer: are they helpful to policy makers? Stem Cells 1994;12:424-9.
11. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
12. Bennett CL, Westerman IL. Economic analysis during phase III clinical trials: who, what, when, where, and why? Oncology 1995;9:69-75.
13. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473-81.
14. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations revisited. Can Med Assoc J 1993;148:927-29.
15. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chron Dis 1967;20:637-48.
16. ATC Trialists' Group. Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen alone for the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomized trial. Lancet 2002;359:2131-9
17. Atkins MD, Lotze MT, Dutcher JP, et al. High dose recombinant interleukin 2 therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: analysis of 270 patients treated between 1985 and 1993. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2105-16.
18. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Antonio BS, et al. Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: a phase 111, double-blind, comparative trial. Cancer J 2001;7:377-87.
19. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. J Health Econ 1996;5:513-24.
20. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-64.
21. Chaudhary MA, Stearns SC. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. Stat Med 1996;15:1447-58.
22. Coyle D, Davies L, Drummond MF. Trials and tribulations. Emerging issues in designing economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998;14:135-44.
23. Goeree R, Gafni A, Hannah M, Myhr T, Blackhouse G. Hospital selection for unit cost estimates in multicentre trials: Does the choice of hospitals make a difference? Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:561-72.
24. Coyle D, Drummond MF. Analyzing differences in the costs of treatment across centers within economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001;17:155-63.
25. Fukuoka M, Yano S, Giaccone G, et al. Final results from a phase II trial of ZD1839 ('Iressa') for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (IDEAL 1). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002;21:Abst 1188.
26. Baselga J, Kris M, Yano S, et al. Phase II trials (IDEAL 1 and IDEAL 2) of ZD1839 in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Ann Oncol 2002;13(S5):131 (abstract 481).