The Impasse on Overall Survival in Oncology Reimbursement Decision-Making: How Can We Resolve This?

References

• NICE Decision Support Unit. NICE DSU technical support document 16: adjusting survival time estimates in the presence of treatment switching; 2014. Available from: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSD16_Treatment_Switching.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad V. Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life? BMJ. 2017;359:j4528. doi:10.1136/bmj.j452828978548
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sola-Morales O, Volmer T, Mantovani L. Perspectives to mitigate payer uncertainty in health technology assessment of novel oncology drugs. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019;7(1):1562861. doi:10.1080/20016689.2018.156286130719243
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pinto A, Naci H, Neez E, Mossialos E. Association between the use of surrogate measures in pivotal trials and health technology assessment decisions: a retrospective analysis of NICE and CADTH reviews of cancer drugs. Value Health. 2020;23(3):319–327. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.10.01032197727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruof J, Knoerzer D, Dunne AA, Dintsios CM, Staab T, Schwartz FW. Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany. Health Policy (New York). 2014;118(2):242–254. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen EY-S, Joshi SK, Prasad V. FDA acceptance of surrogate endpoints in later lines of therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15_suppl):6517. doi:10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.6517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilla T, Lizan L, Paz S, et al. Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;10:1–7.26719677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Looking to the future: oncology endpoints (summary report of a joint workshop held on of 3 July 2017 by the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry); 2017. Available from: https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/41135280. Accessed February 8, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Vintura. Every day counts: improving time to patient access to innovative oncology therapies in Europe; 2020. Available from: https://www.efpia.eu/media/578013/every-day-counts.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• EFPIA. The root cause of unavailability and delay to innovative medicines: reducing the time before patients have access to innovative medicines; 2020. Available from: https://www.efpia.eu/media/554527/root-causes-unvailability-delay-cra-final-300620.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Addressing challenges in access to oncology medicines – analytical report; 2020. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Addressing-Challenges-in-Access-to-Oncology-Medicines-Analytical-Report.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Armeni P, Boscolo PR, Cavazza M, Jommi C, Tarricone R. De innovatione: the concept of innovation for medical technologies and its implications for healthcare policy-making. Health Policy Technol. 2016;5(1):47–64. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmarcher T, Lindgren P, Wilking N, Jonsson B. The cost of cancer in Europe 2018. Eur J Cancer. 2020;129:41–49. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.01.01132120274
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics - guidance for industry; 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/71195/download. Accessed January 23, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley WN, Wickham R, Coombs N. An introduction to survival statistics: Kaplan-Meier analysis. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2016;7(1):91–100.27713848
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaufman HL, Atkins MB, Subedi P, et al. The promise of immuno-oncology: implications for defining the value of cancer treatment. J Immuno Ther Cancer. 2019;7(1):129. doi:10.1186/s40425-019-0594-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dafni U. Landmark analysis at the 25-year landmark point. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):363–371.21586725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Davis S, Tappenden P, et al. Validation of surrogate endpoints in advanced solid tumors: systematic review of statistical methods, results, and implications for policy makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(3):312–324. doi:10.1017/S026646231400030025308694
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man; 2017. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-evaluation-anticancer-medicinal-products-man-revision-5_en.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Kordecka A, Walkiewicz-Zarek E, Lapa J, Sadowska E, Kordecki M. Selection of endpoints in clinical trials: trends in European marketing authorization practice in oncological indications. Value Health. 2019;22(8):884–890. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.00731426929
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enzalutamide for hormone-relapsed non-metastatic prostate cancer. NICE technology appraisal guidance [TA580]; 2019. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta580. Accessed February 1, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Vismodegib for treating basal cell carcinoma. NICE technology appraisal guidance [TA489]; 2017. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta489. Accessed February 1, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Justification to the resolution of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) on an amendment of the pharmaceuticals directive (AM-RL): Annex XII – resolutions on the benefit assessment of medicinal products with new active ingredients according to section 35a SGB V – palbociclib; 2017. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-1465-4388/2017-05-18_AM-RL-XII_Palbociclib_D-264_TrG_EN.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Justification to the resolution of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) on an amendment of the pharmaceuticals directive (AM-RL): Annex XII – resolutions on the benefit assessment of medicinal products with new active ingredients according to section 35a SGB V abemaciclib (breast cancer; in combination with fulvestrant); 2019. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-1465-5714/2019-05-02_AM-RL-XII_Abemaciclib_D-401_TrG_EN.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Informe de Posicionamiento Terapéutico de ixazomib (Ninlaro®) en mieloma múltiple. [Therapeutic Positioning Report of ixazomib (Ninlaro®) in multiple myeloma]; 2018. Available from: https://www.aemps.gob.es/medicamentosUsoHumano/informesPublicos/docs/IPT-ixazomib-Ninlaro-mieloma-multiple.pdf?x54046. Accessed February 1, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Informe de Posicionamiento Terapéutico de pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) en el tratamiento de Linfoma de Hodgkin. [Report on Therapeutic Positioning of pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in the treatment of Hodgkin's Lymphoma]; 2018. Available from: Available from: https://www.aemps.gob.es/medicamentosUsoHumano/informesPublicos/docs/IPT-pembrolizumab-Keytruda-linfoma-Hodgkin.pdf?x98091. Accessed February 1, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Nutzenbewertungsverfahren zum Wirkstoff Bosutinib. [Benefit assessment procedure for the active ingredient bosutinib]; 2013. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/bewertungsverfahren/nutzenbewertung/68/. Accessed January 12, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Re-submission bosutinib; 2015. Available from: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/1353/bosutinib__bosulif__resubmission_final_jan_2015_for_website.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• EUnetHTA. Guideline: endpoints used for relative effectiveness assessment: clinical endpoints; 2015. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WP7-SG3-GL-clin_endpoints_amend2015.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. ICER evidence rating matrix: a user’s guide; 2020. Available from: https://icer.org/evidence-rating-matrix/. Accessed January 6, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. General methods (version 5.0); 2017. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/download/General-Methods_Version-5-0.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• NICE Decision Support Unit. A review of studies examining the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival in advanced or metastatic cancer; 2012. Available from: http://nicedsu.org.uk/methods-development/pfs-os/. Accessed January 23, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• NICE Decision Support Unit. NICE DSU technical support document 20: multivariate meta-analysis of summary data for combining treatment effects on correlated outcomes and evaluating surrogate endpoints; 2019. Available from: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/TSD-20-mvmeta-final.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Appendix 5. Translating comparative treatment effects of proposed surrogate measures to target clinical outcomes; 2016. Available from: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/appendixes/appendix-5.html. Accessed January 20, 2020.
   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. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.251827247218
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherny NI, Dafni U, Bogaerts J, et al. ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale version 1.1. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(10):2340–2366. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx31028945867
   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. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv24926026162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Methods, processes and topic selection for health technology evaluation: proposals for change; 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/chte-methods-and-processes-consultation. Accessed 14 September, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Cook JP, Golec JH, Vernon JA, Pink GH. Real option value and path dependence in oncology innovation. Int J Econ Bus. 2011;18(2):225–238. doi:10.1080/13571516.2011.584428
   Google Scholar
• Fornaro G, Federici C, Rognoni C, Ciani O. Broadening the concept of value: a scoping review on the option value of medical technologies. Value Health. 2021;24:1045–1058. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.01834243829
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA in brief: FDA oncologic drugs advisory committee to review status of six indications granted accelerated approval; 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-brief/fda-brief-fda-oncologic-drugs-advisory-committee-review-status-six-indications-granted-accelerated#:~:text=Since%20the%20inception%20of%20the,oncology%20indications%20have%20been%20withdrawn. Accessed June 15, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver JA, Pazdur R. “Dangling” accelerated approvals in oncology. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(18):e68. doi:10.1056/NEJMp210484633882220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp T, Zuckerman D. Quality of life, overall survival, and costs of cancer drugs approved based on surrogate endpoints. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(2):276–277. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.776127898978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havrilesky LJ, Lim S, Ehrisman JA, et al. Patient preferences for maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(3):561–567. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.01.02631982178
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.01.01226928437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31989L0105. Accessed March 16, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Temple R. A regulatory authority’s opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nirnnio W, Tucker G, editors. Clinical Measurements in Drug Evaluation. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1995:3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, et al. Core outcome Set-STAndards for development: the COS-STAD recommendations. PLoS Med. 2017;14(11):e1002447. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100244729145404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naci H, Davis C, Savović J, et al. Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014–16: cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2019;366:l5221. doi:10.1136/bmj.l522131533922
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilal T, Gonzalez-Velez M, Prasad V. Limitations in clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(8):1108–1115. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.225032539071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fürstenau M, De Silva N, Eichhorst B, Hallek M. Minimal residual disease assessment in CLL: ready for use in clinical routine? HemaSphere. 2019;3(5):e287. doi:10.1097/HS9.000000000000028731942542
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EMA. Guideline on the use of minimal residue disease as an endpoint in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia studies; 2014. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-use-minimal-residue-disease-endpoint-chronic-lymphocytic-leukaemia-studies_en.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Burris H, Storniolo AM. Assessing clinical benefit in the treatment of pancreas cancer: gemcitabine compared to 5-fluorouracil. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33(Suppl 1):S18–22. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(96)00324-39166095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korn EL, Freidlin B, Mooney M. Stopping or reporting early for positive results in randomized clinical trials: the National Cancer Institute Cooperative Group experience from 1990 to 2005. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1712–1721. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.19.533919237631
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AstraZeneca Press Release. Tagrisso Phase III ADAURA trial will be unblinded early after overwhelming efficacy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated lung cancer; 2020. Available from: https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/tagrisso-phase-iii-adaura-trial-will-be-unblinded-early-after-overwhelming-efficacy-in-The-adjuvant-treatment-of-patients-with-egfr-mutated-lung-cancer.html. Accessed January 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Korytowsky B, Sandin R, Faivre S, Valle J. Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(6):533–546. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0145-y24595585
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latimer NR, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Morden JP, Crowther MJ. Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in clinical trials: a follow-up simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(3):765–784. doi:10.1177/096228021664226427114326
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poveda A, Floquet A, Ledermann JA, et al. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:620–631. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00073-533743851
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Claro RA, McGinn K, Kwitkowski V, et al. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval summary: brentuximab vedotin for the treatment of relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma or relapsed systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(21):5845–5849. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-180322962441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capocaccia R, Gatta G, Dal Maso L. Life expectancy of colon, breast, and testicular cancer patients: an analysis of US-SEER population-based data. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(6):1263–1268. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv13125735314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin DY, Fischl MA, Schoenfeld DA. Evaluating the role of CD4-lymphocyte counts as surrogate endpoints in human immunodeficiency virus clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12(9):835–842. doi:10.1002/sim.47801209048101011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakagawa F, May M, Phillips A. Life expectancy living with HIV: recent estimates and future implications. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2013;26(1):17–25. doi:10.1097/QCO.0b013e32835ba6b123221765
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarus JV, Safreed-Harmon K, Barton SE, et al. Beyond viral suppression of HIV – the new quality of life frontier. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):94. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0640-427334606
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hullsiek KH, Grund B. Considerations for endpoint selection when designing HIV clinical trials. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2012;14(1):110–118. doi:10.1007/s11908-011-0231-722161272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson ECF. A practical guide to value of information analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(2):105–121. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0219-x25336432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Saad ED, Peron J, et al. The Net Benefit of a treatment should take the correlation between benefits and harms into account. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:148–158. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.01833774140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller V, Nabieva N, Haberle L, et al. Impact of disease progression on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer in the PRAEGNANT breast cancer registry. Breast. 2018;37:154–160. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2017.08.00829237546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Pertuzumab for the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer -technology appraisal guidance [TA424]: final appraisal document; 2016. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta424/documents/final-appraisal-determination-document. Accessed March 4, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Harbeck N, Schneeweiss A, Thuss-Patience P, et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant end-points in health technology assessment in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2021;147:40–50. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.01.00633611103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marschner N, Zacharias S, Lordick F, et al. Association of disease progression with health-related quality of life among adults with breast, lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e200643. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.064332154886
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y-L, Tsuboi M, He J, et al. Osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutated non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(18):1711–1723. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa202707132955177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottomley A, Pe M, Sloan J, et al. Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):e510–e514. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30510-127769798
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson MK, Mercieca-Bebber R, Friedlander M. A practical guide to understanding, using and including patient reported outcomes in clinical trials in ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(5):e81. doi:10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e8130022641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joly F, Hilpert F, Okamoto A, Stuart G, Ochiai K, Friedlander M. Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: recommendations on incorporating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials in epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017;78:133–138. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2017.03.01928448857
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnanasakthy A, Barrett A, Evans E, D’Alessio D, Romano C. A review of patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA (2012–2016). Value Health. 2019;22(2):203–209. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.284230711065
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood R, Taylor-Stokes G, Smith F, Chaib C. The humanistic burden of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Europe: a real-world survey linking patient clinical factors to patient and caregiver burden. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(7):1849–1861. doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02152-630825160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friends of Cancer Research. Broadening the definition of tolerability in cancer clinical trials to better measure the patient experience; 2018. Available from: https://www.focr.org/sites/default/files/Comparative%20Tolerability%20Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Havrilesky LJ, Alvarez Secord A, Ehrisman JA, et al. Patient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(23):3651–3659. doi:10.1002/cncr.2894025091693
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Hey SP, Kesselheim AS. Evaluating the evidence behind the surrogate measures included in the FDA’s table of surrogate endpoints as supporting approval of cancer drugs. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;21:100332. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.10033232382717
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute dictionary of cancer terms. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms. Accessed May 14, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Xie W, Regan MM, Buyse M, et al. Metastasis-free survival is a strong surrogate of overall survival in localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(27):3097–3104. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.73.998728796587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grigore B, Ciani O, Dams F, et al. Surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment: an international review of methodological guidelines. PharmacoEconomics. 2020;38(10):1055–1070. doi:10.1007/s40273-020-00935-132572825
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers JH, Patrick DL, Walton MK, et al. Clinician-reported outcome assessments of treatment benefit: report of the ISPOR clinical outcome assessment emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2017;20(1):2–14. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.00528212963
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, Rasi G, Saad ED, Taylor RS. Time to review the role of surrogate end points in health policy: state of the art and the way forward. Value Health. 2017;20(3):487–495. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.01128292495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Sargent DJ, Grothey A, Matheson A, de Gramont A. Biomarkers and surrogate end points—the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(6):309–317. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.4320368727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):431–440. doi:10.1002/sim.47800804072727467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Grigore B, Blommestein H, et al. Validity of surrogate endpoints and their impact on coverage recommendations: a retrospective analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:439–452.33719711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouwens MJNM, Mukhopadhyay P, Zhang Y, Huang M, Latimer N, Briggs A. Estimating lifetime benefits associated with immuno-oncology therapies: challenges and approaches for overall survival extrapolations. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(9):1129–1138. doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00806-431102143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullement A, Meng Y, Cooper M, et al. A review and validation of overall survival extrapolation in health technology assessments of cancer immunotherapy by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: how did the initial best estimate compare to trial data subsequently made available? J Med Econ. 2019;22(3):205–214.30422080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tai TA, Latimer NR, Benedict A, Kiss Z, Nikolaou A. Prevalence of immature survival data for anti-cancer drugs presented to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and impact on decision making. Value Health. 2021;24(4):505–512. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.01633840428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Broader types of data to be used in development of NICE guidance; 2020. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/broader-types-of-data-to-be-used-in-development-of-nice-guidance. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• NICE Decision Support Unit. The use of real world data for the estimation of treatment effects in NICE decision making; 2016. Available from: http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/RWD-DSU-REPORT-Updated-DECEMBER-2016.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Lakdawalla DN, Shafrin J, Hou N, et al. Predicting real-world effectiveness of cancer therapies using overall survival and progression-free survival from clinical trials: empirical evidence for the ASCO value framework. Value Health. 2017;20(7):866–875. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.00328712615
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lux MP, Nabieva N, Hartkopf AD, et al. Therapy landscape in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: data from the PRAEGNANT real-world breast cancer registry. Cancers (Basel). 2018;11(1):10. doi:10.3390/cancers11010010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneeweiss A, Ettl J, Lüftner D, et al. Initial experience with CDK4/6 inhibitor-based therapies compared to antihormone monotherapies in routine clinical use in patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer - Data from the PRAEGNANT research network for the first 2 years of drug availability in Germany. Breast. 2020;54:88–95.32956934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annemans L, Makady A. TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):127. doi:10.1186/s13023-020-01370-332456653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMichele A, Cristofanilli M, Brufsky A, et al. Abstract P1-19-02: overall survival for first-line palbociclib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients in US real-world clinical practice. Cancer Res. 2020;80(4Supplement):P1–19–02–P11–19–02.
   Google Scholar