Suppr超能文献

美国临床肿瘤学会价值框架和欧洲肿瘤内科学会临床获益幅度量表是否衡量相同的临床获益构建?

Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?

机构信息

Sierra Cheng, Erica J. McDonald, Matthew C. Cheung, Vanessa S. Arciero, Mahin Qureshi, Di Jiang, Natasha Leighl, and Kelvin K.W. Chan, University of Toronto; Mona Sabharwal, Alexandra Chambers, Dolly Han, and Kelley-Anne Sabarre, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; Kelvin K.W. Chan, Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario; and Doreen Ezeife, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 20;35(24):2764-2771. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6894. Epub 2017 Jun 2.

Abstract

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

摘要

目的 美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)价值框架和欧洲肿瘤内科学会(ESMO)临床获益量表(MCBS)是否衡量类似的临床获益结构尚不清楚。它们与英国和加拿大的质量调整生命年(QALY)和资金建议的关系也不清楚。

方法 检索 2006 年至 2015 年 8 月美国食品和药物管理局、欧洲药品管理局和加拿大卫生部批准的肿瘤药物随机临床试验,并使用 ASCO 版本 1(v1)框架、ASCO 版本 2(v2)框架和 ESMO-MCBS 由至少两名独立评审员进行评分。计算 Spearman 相关系数以评估结构(框架之间)和标准效度(与国家卫生与保健卓越研究所[Nice]和全加肿瘤药物审查[PCODR]的 QALY 相对应)。检查评分与 Nice/pCODR 建议之间的关联。使用组内相关系数评估评分者间信度。

结果 在纳入的 109 项随机临床试验中,确定了 108 项 ASCOv1、111 项 ASCOv2 和 83 项 ESMO 评分。ASCOv1 与 ESMO、ASCOv2 与 ESMO 和 ASCOv1 与 ASCOv2 的相关系数分别为 0.36(95%CI,0.15 至 0.54)、0.17(95%CI,-0.06 至 0.37)和 0.50(95%CI,0.35 至 0.63)。与 Nice QALY 相比,相关系数分别为 0.45(ASCOv1)、0.53(ASCOv2)和 0.46(ESMO);与 pCODR QALY 相比,系数分别为 0.19(ASCOv1)、0.20(ASCOv2)和 0.36(ESMO)。没有一个框架与 Nice/pCODR 建议显著相关。所有框架的评分者间信度都很好。

结论 ASCO 框架与 ESMO-MCBS 的弱至中度相关性,以及它们与 QALY 和 Nice/pCODR 资金建议的相关性,表明所测量的临床获益结构不同。与 ESMO-MCBS 的结构收敛效度并没有随着 ASCO 框架的更新而增加。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验