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.
- Prasad V. Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life? BMJ. 2017;359:j4528. doi:10.1136/bmj.j452828978548
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Dudley WN, Wickham R, Coombs N. An introduction to survival statistics: Kaplan-Meier analysis. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2016;7(1):91–100.27713848
- 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
- Dafni U. Landmark analysis at the 25-year landmark point. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):363–371.21586725
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Beaver JA, Pazdur R. “Dangling” accelerated approvals in oncology. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(18):e68. doi:10.1056/NEJMp210484633882220
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Wilson ECF. A practical guide to value of information analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(2):105–121. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0219-x25336432
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute dictionary of cancer terms. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms. Accessed May 14, 2020.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):431–440. doi:10.1002/sim.47800804072727467
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.