Expenditure on cancer therapies is rising rapidly in many countries, particularly for cancer drugs. In recent years, this has stimulated a global debate among the public, patients, clinicians, decision-makers, and the pharmaceutical industry on value, affordability, and sustainability propositions relating to cancer therapies. In this article, we discuss some recent developments in evidence-based approaches to priority setting and resource allocation in Canadian cancer systems. These developments include new methods for deliberative public engagement, generating and using real-world evidence, multi-criteria decision analysis, and handling uncertainty with evidence for gene therapies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
VoglerSVitryABabarZU. Cancer drugs in 16 European countries, Australia, and New Zealand: a cross-country price comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(1):39–47.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Pharmaceutical spending (indicator). 2018.
4.
CressmanSBrowmanGPHochJSKovacicLPeacockSJ. A time-trend economic analysis of cancer drug trials. Oncologist. 2015:20(7):729–736.
5.
de OliveiraCBremnerKEPatakyR, et al.Trends in use and cost of initial cancer treatment in Ontario: a population-based descriptive study. CMAJ Open. 2013:1(4):E151–E158.
6.
Canadian Cancer Society’s Advisory Committee on Cancer Statistics. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2015: Predictions of the Future Burden of Cancer in Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Cancer Society; 2015.
7.
SavagePMahmoudS. Development and economic trends in cancer therapeutic drugs: a 5-year update 2010-2014. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(6):1037–1041.
8.
HochJSabharwalM. Informing Canada’s cancer drug funding decisions with scientific evidence and patient perspectives: the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(2):121–124.
9.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH Pan-Canada Oncology Drug Review: Find a Review (pCODR). 2017. Available at:https://www.cadth.ca/pcodr/find-a-review. Accessed May 15, 2017.
10.
AbelsonJBlacksherEALiKKBoesveldSEGooldSD. Public deliberation in health policy and bioethics: mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field. J of Public Deliberation. 2013;9(1). Article 5. Available at:www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art5. Accessed May 1, 2019.
11.
O’DohertyKC. Synthesising the outputs of deliberation: extracting meaningful results from a public forum. J of Public Deliberation. 2013;9(1). Article 8. Available at:www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art8. Accessed May 1, 2019.
12.
AbelsonJForestPGEylesJCasebeerAMartinEMackeanG. Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2007:64(10):2115–2128.
13.
BurgessM. Starting on the right foot: public consultation to inform issue definition in genome policy. Electronic Working Papers series. W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia. 2003. Available at:www.ethics.ubc.ca. Accessed May 1, 2019.
BohmanJ. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.
16.
BentleyCCostaSBurgessMMRegierDAMcTaggart-CowanHPeacockS. Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):339.
17.
BurgessMMO’DohertyKCSeckoD. Biobanking in British Columbia: discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagments. Personal Med. 2008;5(8):285–296.
18.
RegierDABentleyCMittonC, et al.Public engagement in priority-setting in cancer control: results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision makers. Soc Sci Med. 2014;122:130–139.
19.
BentleyCPeacockSJAbelsonJ, et al.Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy. Health Res Policy Sys. 2019;17(1):17.
20.
AggarwalAFojoTChamberlainCDavisCSullivanR. Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society? Lessons from the NHS cancer drugs fund. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(8):1738–1750.
HeddenLO’ReillySLohrischC, et al.Assessing the ‘real-world’ cost-effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab in HER-2/neu positive breast cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17(2):164–1671.
24.
HeddenLVillaDSpeersCKovacicLRenoufDPeacockS.Incremental cost-effectiveness of pre- and post-bevacizumab eras of metastatic colorectal cancer therapy in British Columbia, Canada. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(13):1969–1976.
25.
CromwellIvan der HoekKMeloskyBPeacockS. Erlotinib or docetaxel for second line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(12):2097–2103.
26.
KhorSBecaJKrahnM, et al.Real world costs and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients: a population-based analysis. BMC Cancer. 2014;14(1):586.
27.
Chin-YeeNJYanATKumachevA, et al.Association of hospital and physician case volumes with cardiac monitoring and cardiotoxicity during adjuvant trastuzumab treatment for breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2016;4(1):E66–E72.
28.
JerzakKJBerrySKoYJEarleCChanKK. Cetuximab plus irinotecan versus panitumumab in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in Ontario, Canada. Int J Cancer. 2017;140(9):2162–2167.
29.
PandeyHPauldenMMcCabeC. Theoretical Models of the Cost-Effectiveness Threshold, Value Assessment, and Health Care System Sustainability. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Institute of Health Economics; 2018.
30.
DevlinNSussexJ. Incorporating Multiple Criteria in HTA: Methods and Processes. London, United Kingdom: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
31.
PeacockSMittonCBateAMcCoyBDonaldsonC. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy. 2009;92(2-3):124–132.
32.
SchultzLMackallC. Driving CAR T cell translation forward. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(481):eaaw2127.
33.
RaymakersAJNRegierDAPeacockSJ. Modelling uncertainty in survival and cost-effectiveness is vital in the era of gene therapies: the case of axicabtagene ciloleucel. Health Policy Technol. 2019;8(2):104–104.
34.
BecaJHusereauDChanKKWHawkinsNHochJS. Oncology modeling for fun and profit! Key steps for busy analysts in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(1):7–15.
35.
TarriconeRTorbicaADrummondM. Challenges in the assessment of medical devices: the MedtecHTA project. Health Econ2017;26(S1):145–152.
