Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review

References

• Global Oncology Trends 2021 [Internet]. IQVIA. 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/institute-reports/global-oncology-trends-2021/global-oncology-trends-report-2021-05-21-forweb.pdf?_=1623351527908
   Google Scholar
• World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024 [Internet]. EvaluatePharma. 2019 [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: https://info.evaluate.com/rs/607-YGS-364/images/EvaluatePharma_World_Preview_2019.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cohen D. Cancer drugs: high price, uncertain value. BMJ [Internet]. 2017;359:1–4. Available from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4543
   Google Scholar
• Godman B, Bucsics A, Bonanno PV, et al. Barriers for access to new medicines: searching for the balance between rising costs and limited budgets. Front Public Health. 2018;6:1–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: an introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. World Health Organization, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/90432/E87866.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union. [Internet]. World Heal. Organ. behalf Eur. Obs. Heal. Syst. Policies. 2008. [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/98291/E91271.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Longaray AA, Munhoz Pr Da S, Tondolo VAG, et al. Análise multicritério de decisão e sua aplicação na gestão da saúde: uma proposta de revisão sistemática da literatura. Exacta. 2016;14(4):609–618.
   Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Heal [Internet]. 2012;15:961–970. Available from.;(6):.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 [Internet]. 2017;188:137–156. Available from.;:.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campolina AG. Value-based medicine in oncology: the importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks. Clin (Sao Paulo). 2018;73(Suppl 1):e470s–e470s.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Slomiany M, Madhavan P, Kuehn M, et al. Value frameworks in oncology: comparative analysis and implications to the pharmaceutical industry. Am Heal Drug Benefits. 2017;10:253–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, et al. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(2):117–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2925–2934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1547–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinic and Economic Review. Methods Update: value Assessment Framewor (ICER’s 2020-2023 Update). [Internet]. Inst. Clin. Econ. Rev. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 29]. [Internet]: https://icer-review.org/material/2020-value-assessment-framework-final-framework/
   Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network. National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines) with NCCN Evidence BlocksTM [Internet]. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/evidenceblocks/
   Google Scholar
• Drug Abacus [Internet]. Drug Pricing Lab. 2020 [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: https://drugpricinglab.org/tools/drug-abacus/.
   Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, et al., Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: benefits, limitations, and the way forward. Value Heal. 22(11): 1283–1288. 2019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelblatt JS, Ramsey SD, Lieu TA, et al. Evaluating frameworks that provide value measures for health care interventions. Value Heal. 2017;20(2):185–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malone DC, Berg NS, Claxton K, et al. International society for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research comments on the american society of clinical oncology value framework. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2936–2937.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra A, Shafrin J, Dhawan R. Utility of cancer value frameworks for patients, payers, and physicians. JAMA. 2016;315(19):2069–2070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeley TW, Fly HS, Albright H, et al. A method for defining value in healthcare using cancer care as a model. J Heal C Manag. 2010;55. 399–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCutchan GM, Wood F, Edwards A, et al. Influences of cancer symptom knowledge, beliefs and barriers on cancer symptom presentation in relation to socioeconomic deprivation: a systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(1):1000.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, 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 Heal. 19(1): 1–13. 2016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campolina AG, De Soárez PC, Do Amaral FV, et al. Análise de decisão multicritério para alocação de recursos e avaliação de tecnologias em saúde: tão longe e tão perto? Cad Saude Publica. 2017;33(10):1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Heal Expect an Int J public Particip Heal care Heal policy. 2015;18:1894–1905.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira MD, Mataloto I, Kanavos P. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art. Eur J Heal Econ Internet]. 2019;20:891–918. Available from.;(6):.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baran-Kooiker A, Czech M, Kooiker C. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models in health technology assessment of orphan drugs - a systematic literature review next steps in methodology development? Front Public Health. 2018;6:287. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Kim Y, Park D, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in health technology assessment: review of Literature on MCDA Methodology and Decision Criteria. J Heal Technol Assess. 2017;5. 128–142.
   Google Scholar
• Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349(jan02 1):1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2021;134:178–189. Available from.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valachis A, Polyzos NP, Nearchou A, et al. Financial relationships in economic analyses of targeted therapies in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1316–1320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan - a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):2010.
   Google Scholar
• Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Heal. 2012;15(8):1172–1181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Ijzerman M, Thokala P, 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 Heal [Internet]. 2016;19(2):125–137. Available from.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC methods programme [Internet]. Version 1. Lancaster Univ. 2005 [cited 2021 Jun 29]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.Uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781
   Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Montibeller G, Hochhauser D, et al., 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 Med Inform Decis Mak. 17(1): 1–25. 2017.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Angelis A, Linch M, Montibeller G, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for HTA across four EU member states: piloting the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med Internet]. 2020;246:112595. Available from.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babashov V, Ben Amor S, Reinhardt G. Framework for drug formulary decision using multiple-criteria decision analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2020;40(4):438–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baeten SA, Baltussen RMPM, Uyl-De Groot CA, et al., Incorporating equity-efficiency interactions in cost-effectiveness analysis - Three approaches applied to breast cancer control. Value Heal. 13(5): 573–579. 2010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretoni A, Ferrario L, Foglia E. HTA and innovative treatments evaluation: the case of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Outcomes Res. 2019;11:283–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezeife DA, Dionne F, Fares AF, et al., Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach. Cancer. 126(24): 1530–1540. 2020.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garau M, Hampson G, Devlin N, et al. Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach to elicit stakeholders’ preferences in italy: the case of obinutuzumab for rituximab-refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL). Pharmaco Economics Open. 2018; 2(2) 153–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golan O, Hansen P. Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1(1):1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hsu JC, Lin JY, Lin PC, et al. Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: an example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment. PLoS One Internet]. 2019;14:1–17. Available from.;:.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Improta G, Perrone A, Russo MA, et al. Health technology assessment (HTA) of optoelectronic biosensors for oncology by analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Likert scale. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Improta G, Converso G, Murino T, et al. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in dynamic configuration as a tool for Health Technology Assessment (HTA): the case of biosensing optoelectronics in oncology. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak. 2019;18(5):1533–1550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon SH, Park SK, Byun JH, et al. Eliciting societal preferences of reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs in South Korea. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res [Internet]. 2017;17:411–419. Available from.;(4):.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcelon L, Verstraeten T, Dominiak-Felden G, et al., Quantitative benefit-risk assessment by MCDA of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine for preventing anal cancer in males. Expert Rev Vaccines. 15(1): 139–148. 2016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):1–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagner M, Khoury H, Bennetts L, et al., Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: a multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA. BMC Cancer. 17(1): 1–12. 2017.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):456–465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, et al. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunes LMN, Marta Maria de França. F, Passos ACB, et al. Evaluation of demands of inclusion, exclusion and alteration of technologies in the Brazilian health system submitted to the national committee on technology incorporation. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2017;53(2):e16073–e16073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caetano R, Silva RMD, Pedro ÉM, et al. Incorporação de novos medicamentos pela Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias do SUS, 2012 a junho de 2016. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(8):2513–2525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach PB. Limits on Medicare’s ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. NEJM. 2009;360(6):626–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMartino PC, Miljkovic MD, Prasad V. Potential cost implications for all US food and drug administration oncology drug approvals in 2018. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(2):162–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, et al. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Economics. 2006;15(7):689–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Ten Asbroek AH, Koolman X, et al. Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Heal Policy Plan. 2007;22(3):178–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Heal. 2008;11(7):1081–1087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coumoundouros C, Rn SDL, Mccusker J. The direct and indirect financial costs of informal cancer care: a scoping review. Heal Soc Care Community. 2019;27:e622–e636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, et al. From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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 Heal Econ. 2018;19(1):123–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paoletti X, Lewsley L, Daniele G, et al. Assessment of progression-free survival as a surrogate end point of overall survival in first-line treatment of ovarian cancer a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(1):e1918939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefi t in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp R, Prasad V, Mueller B. Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? BMC Med. 2017;15(1):15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prasad V, Kim C, Burotto M, et al. The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiffen P. Value or cost: looking for the wider perspective. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2017;24(2):73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):270.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adunlin G, Diaby V, Montero AJ, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology. Heal Expect. 2015;18(6):1812–1826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Sculpher M, Caro J, et al. The use of MCDA in HTA: great potential, but more effort needed. Value Heal. 2018;21(4):394–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Bastida J, Ramos-Goñi JM, Aranda-Reneo I, et al. Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of patients with rare diseases in Italy. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, et al. Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12(1):22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ruddy K, Mayer E, Partridge A. Patient adherence and persistence with oral anticancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(1):56–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer J, Amoyal N, Nisotel L, et al. A systematic review of adherence to oral antineoplastic therapies. Oncologist. 2016;21(3):354–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild C, Grössmann N, Bonanno PV, et al. Utilisation of the ESMO-MCBS in practice of HTA. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(11):2134–2136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar