Multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment: A simulation exercise on metastatic colorectal cancer with multiple stakeholders in the English setting

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Angelis, Aris ^a   Montibeller, Gilberto ^b   Hochhauser, Daniel ^c   Kanavos, Panos ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Advance Value Framework (AVF); England; Health technology assessment (HTA); Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); New medicines; Value assessment

Indexed keywords

IMMUNOLOGICAL ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ENGLAND; HUMAN; METASTASIS; PROOF OF CONCEPT; SIMULATION TRAINING; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS, IMMUNOLOGICAL; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ENGLAND; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; PROOF OF CONCEPT STUDY; SIMULATION TRAINING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85032393150     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-017-0524-3     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Wouters OJ, Naci H, Samani NJ. QALYs in cost-effectiveness analysis: an overview for cardiologists. Heart. 2015;101(23):1868-73.
2. Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value- based pricing of medicines. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(1):1-10.
3. Devlin NJ, Lorgelly PK. QALYs as a measure of value in cancer. J Cancer Policy. 2017;11:19-25.
4. Grosse SD, Wordsworth S, Payne K. Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med. 2008;10(9):648-54.
5. Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives. Value Health. 2013;16(1 Suppl):S7-S13.
6. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking - the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.
7. Devlin N, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. London: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
8. Thokala P. Multi criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: report by the decision support unit. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2011.
9. Kanavos P, Angelis A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for value based assessment of new medical technologies: a conceptual framework. London School of Economics and Political Science: The LSE Health Working Paper Series in Health Policy and Economics; 2013.
10. Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. Multi-criteria decision analysis to value orphan medicines. London: Office of Health Economics; 2013.
11. Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M. Implementation of EUnetHTA core model® in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):105-12.
12. 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 Health. 2016;19(1):1-13.
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 Health. 2016;19(2):125-37.
14. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(4):345-65.
15. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(5):435-46.
16. 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. 2017; In Press
17. Franco LA, Montibeller G. Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res. 2010;205(3):489-500.
18. NICE. Bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Technology Appraisal Guidance 118: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2007. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta118.
19. NICE. Cetuximab for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Technology Appraisal Guidance 176: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2009. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta176.
20. NICE. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin and either fluorouracil plus folinic acid or capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Technology Appraisal Guidance 212: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta212.
21. NICE. Cetuximab, bevacizumab and panitumumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy: Cetuximab (monotherapy or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (in combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy. Technology Appraisal Guidance 242: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2012. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta242.
22. NICE. Aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy for treating metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Technology Appraisal Guidance 307: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/ta307.
23. NICE. Regorafenib for metastatic colorectal cancer after treatment for metastatic disease (terminated appraisal). Technology Appraisal Guidance 334: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/TA334.
24. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
25. Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
26. Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Corrêa ÉC, Vansnick J-C. Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. Eur J Oper Res 1999; 113(2):315-335.
27. NICE. Guide to the processes of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg19/chapter/foreword.
28. Keeney R. Value focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1992.
29. Franco L, Montibeller G. Problem Structuring for Multicriteria Decision Analysis Interventions analysis interventions. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. 2010. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0683/abstract;jsessionid=8AE060161BEA77B92491DFBFF9784E39.f01t03userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=.
30. Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2017; doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0871-0. [Epub ahead of print].
31. Keeney RL, Gregory RS. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res. 2005;53(1):1-11.
32. Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R, Prenen H, Prausová J, Macarulla T, et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3499-506.
33. Price TJ, Peeters M, Kim TW, Li J, Cascinu S, Ruff P, et al. Panitumumab versus cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (ASPECCT): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(6):569-79.
34. Wade R, Duarte A, Simmonds M, Rodriguez-Lopez R, Duffy S, Spackman E, et al. Aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. York: University of York; 2013.
35. Hoyle M, Crathorne L, Peters J, Jones-Hughes T, Cooper C, Napier M, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy (review of technology appraisal no.150 and part review of technology appraisal no. 118): a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess (Winch Eng). 2013;17(14):1-237.
36. Hoyle M, Peters J, Crathorne L, Jones-Hughes T, Cooper C, Napier M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2013;16(2):288-96.
37. EMA. Erbitux (cetuximab) EPAR - Product Information. European Medicines Agency 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/EPAR---Product-Information/human/000558/WC500029119.pdf.
38. EMA. Vectibix (panitumumab) EPAR - Product Information. European Medicines Agency 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/EPAR---Product-Information/human/000741/WC500047710.pdf.
39. EMA. Zaltrap (aflibercept) EPAR - Product Information. European Medicines Agency 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/EPAR---Product-Information/human/002532/WC500139484.pdf.
40. World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre. ATC/DDD Index 2016. Available from: http://www.whocc.no/atc-ddd-index/. Accessed 25 July 2016.
41. NIH. ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Institutes of Health; 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
42. Belton V, Stewart T. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
43. Phillips L. Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles R, von Winterfeldt D, editors. Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
44. Phillips LD. Bana e Costa CA. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res. 2007;154(1):51-68.
45. Phillips L. A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychol. 1984;56:29-48.
46. Phillips L, Phillips M. Faciliated Work Groups: Theory and Practice. J Oper Res Soc. 1993;44(6):533-49.
47. Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick J-C. MACBETH - an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. Int Trans Oper Res. 1994;1(4):489.
48. Bana e Costa CA, De Corte J-M, Vansnick J-C. MACBETH. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak. 2012;11(2):359-87.
49. Bana e Costa C, De Corte J, Vansnick J. On the Mathematical Foundations of MACBETH. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira J, eds. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer New York; 2016. http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781493930937.
50. Bana e Costa C, Lourenço J, Oliveira M, Bana e Costa J. A socio-technical approach for group decision support in public strategic planning: the Pernambuco PPA case. Group Decis Negot. 2014;23(1):5-29.
51. Sanchez-Lopez R, Bana e Costa CA, Baets B. The MACBETH approach for multi-criteria evaluation of development projects on cross-cutting issues. Annals of Operations Research. 2012;199(1):393-408.
52. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: the Advance Value Framework. Social Science Medicine. 2017; In Press.
53. Bana e Costa C, De Corte J, Vansnick J. M-MACBETH website. 2016; Available from: http://www.m-macbeth.com/help/pdf/M-MACBETH%203.0.0%20Users%20Guide-BETA.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2016.
54. Bana e Costa C, Vansnick J. The MACBETH Approach: Basic Ideas, Software, and an Application. In: Meskens N, Roubens M, eds. Advances in Decision Analysis. Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. 1999:131-57. http://www.springer.com/us/book/9780792355632.
55. Fasolo B, Bana e Costa CA. Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: expressing value judgments in numbers or words. Omega. 2014;44:83-90.
56. Claxton K. Should multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) replace cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) for evaluation of health care coverage decisions? ISPOR 16th Annual European Congress; 2013; Dublin.
57. Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Til J, Hummel J, Ijzerman M. A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(5):445-55.
58. Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Buskens E, Hillege HL, Postmus D. A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30(12):1419-28.
59. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417-28.
60. Tervonen T, Naci H, van Valkenhoef G, Ades AE, Angelis A, Hillege HL, et al. Applying multiple criteria decision analysis to comparative benefit-risk assessment: choosing among Statins in primary prevention. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(7):859-71.
61. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Fleurence R, Tsoi B, Toor H, Ades AE. Comparative benefits of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of major coronary events and all-cause mortality: a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20(4):641-57.
62. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Fleurence R, Ades AE. Comparative effects of statins on major cerebrovascular events: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. QJM. 2013;106(4):299-306.
63. Naci H, Brugts J, Ades T. Comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins: a study-level network meta-analysis of 246 955 participants from 135 randomized, controlled trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(4):390-9.
64. van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zhao J, de Brock B, Hillege HL, Postmus D. Multicriteria benefit-risk assessment using network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(4):394-403.
65. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet Y, Hendlisz A, Neyns B, et al. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(13):1658-64.
66. Peacock SJ, Richardson JRJ, Carter R, Edwards D. Priority setting in health care using multi- attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(4):897-910.
67. Karlsberg Schaffer S, Sussex J, Devlin N, Walker A. Local health care expenditure plans and their opportunity costs. Health Policy. 2015;119(9):1237-44.
68. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for health and care excellence cost- effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1-503.
69. Cleemput I, Devriese S, Kohn L, Devos C, van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K, et al. Incorporating societal preferences in reimbursement decisions - Relative importance of decision criteria according to Belgian citizens. Health Services Research (HSR). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) 2014. KCE Reports 234. D/2014/10.273/91.
70. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ Sr, Needle MN, Kopit J, Mayer RJ. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(7):1201-8.
71. Ciardiello F, Tortora G. EGFR antagonists in cancer treatment. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(11):1160-74.
72. Misale S, Yaeger R, Hobor S, Scala E, Janakiraman M, Liska D, et al. Emergence of KRAS mutations and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Nature. 2012;486(7404):532-6.
73. Jonker DJ, O'Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, Zalcberg JR, Tu D, Au H-J, et al. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):2040-8.
74. Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, O'Dwyer PJ, Mitchell EP, Alberts SR, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the eastern cooperative oncology group study E3200. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(12):1539-44.
75. Schein E. Process consultation revisited: building the helping relationship. Reading: Addison-Wesley Longman 1999. ISBN-10: 020134596X. ISBN-13: 978-0201345964.
76. Keeney RL. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper Res. 2002;50(6):935.