Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines

dc.contributor.authorSoon, Jennifer A
dc.contributor.authorHang, To
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, Marliese
dc.contributor.authorTrapani, Karen
dc.contributor.authorAscierto, Paolo
dc.contributor.authorAthan, Sophy
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Michael P.
dc.contributor.authorBurge, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorHaydon, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorHughes, Brett G M
dc.contributor.authorYip, Desmond
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-24T00:01:54Z
dc.date.available2024-06-24T00:01:54Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.date.updated2024-05-19T08:17:41Z
dc.description.abstractBackground Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government’s pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. Method Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. Results The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. Conclusion Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was part of the Predicting the population health economic Impact of current and new CAncer Therapies (PRIMCAT) study which is funded by the Medical Research Future Fund, Preventative and Public Health THSCOR 2019 (Targeted Health Systems and Community Organisation Research), grant number 2020/MRF1199701
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn22135383
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733713342
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.provenanceThis is an open access artic leunder the CCBY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/4.0/).
dc.publisherElsevier B.V
dc.rights© 2023 The authors
dc.rights.licenseCreative Commons Attribution licence
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceJournal of Cancer Policy
dc.subjectDecision making
dc.subjectHealth priorities
dc.subjectHealth care costs
dc.subjectHealth policy
dc.subjectTechnology assessment
dc.subjectBiomedical
dc.subjectMelanoma
dc.subjectNon-small cell lung cancer
dc.subjectColorectal cancer
dc.subjectCancer
dc.subjectCommunity involvement
dc.titleA tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines
dc.typeJournal article
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
local.contributor.affiliationSoon, Jennifer A, Monash University
local.contributor.affiliationHang, To, University of Canberra
local.contributor.affiliationAlexander, Marliese, University of Melbourne
local.contributor.affiliationTrapani, Karen, University of Melbourne
local.contributor.affiliationAscierto, Paolo, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS
local.contributor.affiliationAthan, Sophy, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance
local.contributor.affiliationBrown, Michael P., SA Pathology and University of South Australia; Royal Adelaide Hospital Cancer Program;The University of Adelaide
local.contributor.affiliationBurge, Matthew, University of Queensland
local.contributor.affiliationHaydon, Andrew, Alfred Health
local.contributor.affiliationHughes, Brett G M, Canberra Hospital
local.contributor.affiliationYip, Desmond, College of Health and Medicine, ANU
local.contributor.authoruidYip, Desmond, u5086006
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor321104 - Cancer therapy (excl. chemotherapy and radiation therapy)
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB45467
local.identifier.citationvolume38
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85177800211
local.publisher.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S2213538323000589-main.pdf
Size:
967.07 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
abcd