Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs

Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Com...

Celý popis

Uložené v:

Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:	Value in health Ročník 20; číslo 2; s. 200 - 205
Hlavní autori:	Bentley, Tanya G.K., Cohen, Joshua T., Elkin, Elena B., Huynh, Julie, Mukherjea, Arnab, Neville, Thanh H., Mei, Matthew, Copher, Ronda, Knoth, Russell, Popescu, Ioana, Lee, Jackie, Zambrano, Jenelle M., Broder, Michael S.
Médium:	Journal Article
Jazyk:	English
Vydavateľské údaje:	United States Elsevier Inc 01.02.2017 Elsevier Science Ltd
Predmet:	Antineoplastic Agents - standards Cancer Confidence intervals Convergent validity Decision making Decision Support Techniques Drugs Evaluation Feedback Health care inter-rater reliability Internal Medicine Lung cancer Medical decision making Medical Oncology Oncology Pilot Projects Reliability Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity analysis Validity Value value frameworks Value-Based Purchasing convergent validity value frameworks oncology inter-rater reliability
ISSN:	1098-3015, 1524-4733, 1524-4733
On-line prístup:	Získať plný text
Tagy:	Pridať tag Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!

Abstract	Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517–0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545–0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055–0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.
AbstractList	Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).BACKGROUNDSeveral organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology.OBJECTIVESTo understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology.In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.METHODSIn this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores.RESULTSDrugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores.The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.CONCLUSIONSThe ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback. Abstract Background Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Objectives To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. Methods In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 ( P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER ( W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN ( W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN ( W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN ( W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517–0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545–0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055–0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. Conclusions The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback. Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517–0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545–0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055–0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback. Background: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Objectives: To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. Methods: In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517–0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545–0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055–0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. Conclusions: The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.
Author	Broder, Michael S. Cohen, Joshua T. Mukherjea, Arnab Zambrano, Jenelle M. Huynh, Julie Copher, Ronda Mei, Matthew Knoth, Russell Elkin, Elena B. Bentley, Tanya G.K. Neville, Thanh H. Popescu, Ioana Lee, Jackie
Author_xml	– sequence: 1 givenname: Tanya G.K. surname: Bentley fullname: Bentley, Tanya G.K. email: tbentley@pharllc.com organization: Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC, Beverly Hills, CA, USA – sequence: 2 givenname: Joshua T. surname: Cohen fullname: Cohen, Joshua T. organization: Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA – sequence: 3 givenname: Elena B. surname: Elkin fullname: Elkin, Elena B. organization: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA – sequence: 4 givenname: Julie surname: Huynh fullname: Huynh, Julie organization: Hematology Oncology of San Fernando Valley, Encino, CA, USA – sequence: 5 givenname: Arnab surname: Mukherjea fullname: Mukherjea, Arnab organization: Health Sciences Program, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA – sequence: 6 givenname: Thanh H. surname: Neville fullname: Neville, Thanh H. organization: Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA – sequence: 7 givenname: Matthew surname: Mei fullname: Mei, Matthew organization: City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA – sequence: 8 givenname: Ronda surname: Copher fullname: Copher, Ronda organization: Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA – sequence: 9 givenname: Russell surname: Knoth fullname: Knoth, Russell organization: Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA – sequence: 10 givenname: Ioana surname: Popescu fullname: Popescu, Ioana organization: Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA – sequence: 11 givenname: Jackie surname: Lee fullname: Lee, Jackie organization: Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC, Beverly Hills, CA, USA – sequence: 12 givenname: Jenelle M. surname: Zambrano fullname: Zambrano, Jenelle M. organization: Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC, Beverly Hills, CA, USA – sequence: 13 givenname: Michael S. surname: Broder fullname: Broder, Michael S. organization: Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC, Beverly Hills, CA, USA
BackLink	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28237195$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark	eNqFkltrFTEUhYNU7EX_gA8y4IsvMyY7c4uIUI5WhYOCt9eQyexIpplJm8y0nH9vhtP6cMD6lB2yvpWwVk7J0eQnJOQ5owWjrH49FMONcgWkuWBQUMYekRNWQZmXDedHaaaizTll1TE5jXGglNYcqifkGFrgDRPVCdn-Us72dt5lauqzb-is6qxb995k6WzB7DxGjHHEac4ughrx1ofLmBkfsi94m23UpDFk78PyOz4lj41yEZ_drWfk58WHH5tP-fbrx8-b822uK17OuRE9NEIpY-oGm1YzzitsQGuDHQNVGlV3IEAYUH2PGqq6Fh3XZVdrFFogPyOv9r5XwV8vGGc52qjROTWhX6JkbQNV0zAukvTlgXTwS5jS6yTQFmpoalol1Ys71dKN2MurYEcVdvI-pyRo9wIdfIwBjdR2VrP10xyUdZJRuVYiB7lWItdKJAOZKkkoHKD37g9Cb_cQphhvLAYZtcWUdG8D6ln23j6MvzvAtbOT1cpd4g7j3wiYjAmQ39ePsv4TVvMSgLXJ4M2_Df53-x92xsye
CitedBy_id	crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2016_12_012 crossref_primary_10_6061_clinics_2018_e470s crossref_primary_10_1080_14737167_2017_1343146 crossref_primary_10_1200_JCO_18_00729 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18063139 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinthera_2019_11_017 crossref_primary_10_1200_JCO_2017_73_5704 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2019_02_003 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0266462318000569 crossref_primary_10_1080_14737167_2023_2223984 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00607_022_01137_7 crossref_primary_10_1002_hbm_25947 crossref_primary_10_1200_OP_24_00739 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12094_018_1887_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_S1470_2045_24_00505_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_S1470_2045_17_30698_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2019_04_1912 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_019_4405_6 crossref_primary_10_3389_fphar_2017_00497 crossref_primary_10_1080_14737167_2019_1635458 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40425_019_0594_0 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_045550 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2018_08_008 crossref_primary_10_1097_PPO_0000000000000459 crossref_primary_10_2217_fon_2019_0456 crossref_primary_10_1200_JCO_2017_73_1877 crossref_primary_10_1007_s41669_017_0048_x crossref_primary_10_1200_EDBK_349861 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2018_00328 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinthera_2019_12_004 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2017_12_011
Cites_doi	10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 10.1093/annonc/mdv249 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00118 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6706 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0174 10.1056/NEJMp1011024 10.1001/jama.2016.4637 10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.009 10.1056/NEJMp1512009 10.1056/NEJMp1508387 10.1001/jama.2016.4915 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2518 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0116
ContentType	Journal Article
Copyright	2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Feb 2017
Copyright_xml	– notice: 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) – notice: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) – notice: Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. – notice: Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Feb 2017
DBID	6I. AAFTH AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QJ 7X8
DOI	10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011
DatabaseName	ScienceDirect Open Access Titles Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle	CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList	MEDLINE - Academic Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) MEDLINE
Database_xml	– sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod	fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline	Medicine Pharmacy, Therapeutics, & Pharmacology
EISSN	1524-4733
EndPage	205
ExternalDocumentID	28237195 10_1016_j_jval_2016_12_011 S1098301516342218 1_s2_0_S1098301516342218
Genre	Validation Studies Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article
GroupedDBID	--- --K --M .1- .3N .FO .GA .Y3 .~1 0R~ 10A 123 1OC 1P~ 1~. 29Q 31~ 36B 4.4 44B 457 4G. 51W 51X 52N 52P 52R 52S 52X 53G 5LA 5VS 66C 6PF 7-5 7PT 8-1 8P~ 8UM AAEDT AAEDW AAFJI AAFWJ AAIKJ AAKOC AALRI AAMMB AAOAW AAPFB AAQFI AAQXK AATTM AAWTL AAXKI AAXUO AAYWO ABBQC ABCQN ABDBF ABEML ABIVO ABJNI ABMAC ABMMH ABMZM ABWVN ABXDB ACDAQ ACGFS ACHQT ACIEU ACLOT ACPRK ACRLP ACRPL ACUHS ACVFH ACXQS ADBBV ADCNI ADEZE ADFHU ADMUD ADNMO ADVLN AEBSH AEFGJ AEIPS AEKER AENEX AEUPX AEVXI AEXQZ AEYQN AFBPY AFEBI AFJKZ AFPUW AFRHN AFTJW AFXIZ AFZJQ AGHFR AGQPQ AGTHC AGUBO AGXDD AGYEJ AIDQK AIDYY AIEXJ AIGII AIIAU AIIUN AIKHN AITUG AJAOE AJRQY AJUYK AKBMS AKRWK AKYEP ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ ANKPU ANZVX AOMHK APXCP ASPBG AVARZ AVWKF AXJTR AXLSJ AZFZN BAWUL BFHJK BKOJK BLXMC BNPGV BY8 CAG CO8 COF CS3 DCZOG DIK DU5 EAD EAP EBS EFJIC EFKBS EFLBG EJD EMB EMK EMOBN ESX F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID FNPLU FYGXN GBLVA HF~ HVGLF HZI HZ~ IHE IXB KOM LH4 M41 MO0 N9A O-L O9- OAUVE OIG OK1 OVD P-8 P-9 P2P PC. PQQKQ PRBVW Q38 QB0 R2- ROL SDF SEL SES SPCBC SSB SSF SSH SSO SSZ SV3 T5K TEORI TUS W99 WIN WYUIH XG1 YFH Z5R ~G- ~HD 0SF 6I. AACTN AAFTH AAHHS ABVKL ACCFJ AEEZP AEQDE AFCTW AFKWA AIWBW AJBDE AJOXV AMFUW NCXOZ RIG SUPJJ AAIAV ABLVK ABYKQ AJBFU AKYCK IXIXF LCYCR AAYXX ALUQN CITATION O8X CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QJ 7X8
ID	FETCH-LOGICAL-c534t-f9d279aaff67e78c1335e72ccfeb12a4fa6b2929f2addec25669b3c4b6ce9c9e3
ISICitedReferencesCount	36
ISICitedReferencesURI	http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000396450400004&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN	1098-3015 1524-4733
IngestDate	Sat Sep 27 22:21:48 EDT 2025 Fri Nov 21 20:58:14 EST 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:06:30 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 06:09:51 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 21:24:39 EST 2025 Fri Feb 23 02:30:58 EST 2024 Tue Feb 25 19:58:25 EST 2025 Tue Oct 14 19:35:53 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess	true
IsOpenAccess	true
IsPeerReviewed	true
IsScholarly	true
Issue	2
Keywords	convergent validity value frameworks oncology inter-rater reliability
Language	English
License	This article is made available under the Elsevier license. Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
LinkModel	OpenURL
MergedId	FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c534t-f9d279aaff67e78c1335e72ccfeb12a4fa6b2929f2addec25669b3c4b6ce9c9e3
Notes	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3
OpenAccessLink	https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S1098301516342218
PMID	28237195
PQID	2082627605
PQPubID	105593
PageCount	6
ParticipantIDs	proquest_miscellaneous_1872577139 proquest_journals_2082627605 pubmed_primary_28237195 crossref_citationtrail_10_1016_j_jval_2016_12_011 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2016_12_011 elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_jval_2016_12_011 elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S1098301516342218 elsevier_clinicalkey_doi_10_1016_j_jval_2016_12_011
PublicationCentury	2000
PublicationDate	2017-02-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD	2017-02-01
PublicationDate_xml	– month: 02 year: 2017 text: 2017-02-01 day: 01
PublicationDecade	2010
PublicationPlace	United States
PublicationPlace_xml	– name: United States – name: Lawrenceville
PublicationTitle	Value in health
PublicationTitleAlternate	Value Health
PublicationYear	2017
Publisher	Elsevier Inc Elsevier Science Ltd
Publisher_xml	– name: Elsevier Inc – name: Elsevier Science Ltd
References	National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) with NCCN Evidence Blocks. Available from [Accessed August 2, 2016]. Feinberg, Lal, Swint (bib15) 2015; 21 Schnipper, Davidson, Wollins (bib4) 2016; 34 National Health Council. The patient voice in value: the NHC patient-centered value model rubric. 2016. Available from Young (bib18) 2015; 373 [Accessed June 21, 2016]. user guide. Available from Chandra, Shafrin, Dhawan (bib12) 2016; 315 Taylor PJ. An introduction to intraclass correlation that resolves some common confusions. Faculty paper, Programs in Science, Technology and Values, Critical and Creative Thinking, and Public Policy, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA. Available from Ollendorf D, Pearson SD. ICER evidence rating matrix: a user’s guide. 2016. Available from Neumann, Cohen (bib17) 2015; 373 Eaton, Jagels, Martins (bib22) 2016; 21 Riva, Pravettoni (bib24) 2016; 4 Ollendorf, Chapman, Khan (bib7) 2016 Dangi-Garimella S. Lessons to learn from the NICE cancer care model. Available from (bib1) 2016; 48 Goulart (bib16) 2016; 21 Cherny, Sullivan, Dafni (bib2) 2015; 26 Cicchetti (bib20) 1994; 6 [Accessed December 9, 2016]. Basch (bib11) 2016; 315 frequently asked questions. Available from Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Addressing the myths about ICER and value assessment. Available from Schnipper, Davidson, Wollins (bib3) 2015; 33 [Accessed August 24, 2016]. Porter (bib21) 2010; 363 Ken Lee, Matthew Austin, Pronovost (bib23) 2016; 19 [Accessed August 10, 2016]. [Accessed August 25, 2016]. Dalzell (bib13) 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2016. 2016. Available from National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Evidence Blocks [Accessed June 15, 2016]. Cherny (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib2) 2015; 26 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib9 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib8 Goulart (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib16) 2016; 21 Ken Lee (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib23) 2016; 19 Porter (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib21) 2010; 363 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib6 Chandra (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib12) 2016; 315 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib5 Dalzell (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib13) 2016 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib10 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib14 Ollendorf (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib7) 2016 Young (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib18) 2015; 373 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib19 (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib1) 2016; 48 Basch (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib11) 2016; 315 Schnipper (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib3) 2015; 33 Cicchetti (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib20) 1994; 6 Feinberg (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib15) 2015; 21 Riva (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib24) 2016; 4 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib25 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib26 Eaton (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib22) 2016; 21 Neumann (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib17) 2015; 373 Schnipper (10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib4) 2016; 34
References_xml	– volume: 34 start-page: 2925 year: 2016 end-page: 2934 ident: bib4 article-title: Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received publication-title: J Clin Oncol – volume: 373 start-page: 2595 year: 2015 end-page: 2597 ident: bib17 article-title: Measuring the value of prescription drugs publication-title: N Engl J Med – volume: 363 start-page: 2477 year: 2010 end-page: 2481 ident: bib21 article-title: What is value in health care? publication-title: N Engl J Med – year: 2016 ident: bib13 publication-title: Considerations for designing “value calculators” for oncology therapies – year: 2016 ident: bib7 article-title: Treatment Options for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Effectiveness, Value, and Value-Based Price Benchmarks – volume: 6 start-page: 284 year: 1994 end-page: 290 ident: bib20 article-title: Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology publication-title: Psychol Assess – reference: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) with NCCN Evidence Blocks. Available from: – volume: 48 start-page: 13230 year: 2016 end-page: 13261 ident: bib1 article-title: 42 CFR part 511 Medicare program; part B drug payment model; proposed rule publication-title: Fed Regist – reference: frequently asked questions. Available from: – volume: 315 start-page: 2069 year: 2016 ident: bib12 article-title: Utility of cancer value frameworks for patients, payers, and physicians publication-title: JAMA – reference: American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2016. 2016. Available from: – volume: 373 start-page: 2593 year: 2015 end-page: 2595 ident: bib18 article-title: Value-based cancer care publication-title: N Engl J Med – volume: 26 start-page: 1547 year: 2015 end-page: 1573 ident: bib2 article-title: 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) publication-title: Ann Oncol – volume: 19 start-page: 323 year: 2016 end-page: 325 ident: bib23 article-title: Developing a measure of value in health care publication-title: Value Health – reference: National Health Council. The patient voice in value: the NHC patient-centered value model rubric. 2016. Available from: – reference: Taylor PJ. An introduction to intraclass correlation that resolves some common confusions. Faculty paper, Programs in Science, Technology and Values, Critical and Creative Thinking, and Public Policy, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA. Available from: – reference: . [Accessed August 10, 2016]. – volume: 21 start-page: 651 year: 2016 end-page: 653 ident: bib16 article-title: Value: the next frontier in cancer care publication-title: Oncologist – reference: . [Accessed August 25, 2016]. – volume: 33 start-page: 2563 year: 2015 end-page: 2577 ident: bib3 article-title: American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options publication-title: J Clin Oncol – reference: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Evidence Blocks – volume: 21 start-page: SP542 year: 2015 end-page: SP544 ident: bib15 article-title: Is there a mathematical resolution to the cost-versus-value debate? publication-title: Am J Manag Care – reference: Ollendorf D, Pearson SD. ICER evidence rating matrix: a user’s guide. 2016. Available from: – volume: 21 start-page: 903 year: 2016 end-page: 906 ident: bib22 article-title: Value-based care in lung cancer publication-title: Oncologist – reference: Dangi-Garimella S. Lessons to learn from the NICE cancer care model. Available from: – reference: . [Accessed December 9, 2016]. – reference: . [Accessed August 24, 2016]. – volume: 4 start-page: 118 year: 2016 ident: bib24 article-title: Value-based model: a new perspective in medical decision-making publication-title: Front Public Health – reference: user guide. Available from: – reference: . [Accessed June 15, 2016]. – volume: 315 start-page: 2073 year: 2016 ident: bib11 article-title: Toward a patient-centered value framework in oncology publication-title: JAMA – reference: Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Addressing the myths about ICER and value assessment. Available from: – reference: . [Accessed August 2, 2016]. – reference: . [Accessed June 21, 2016]. – volume: 6 start-page: 284 year: 1994 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib20 article-title: Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology publication-title: Psychol Assess doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib10 – volume: 26 start-page: 1547 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib2 article-title: 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) publication-title: Ann Oncol doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv249 – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib9 – volume: 4 start-page: 118 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib24 article-title: Value-based model: a new perspective in medical decision-making publication-title: Front Public Health doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00118 – volume: 33 start-page: 2563 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib3 article-title: American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options publication-title: J Clin Oncol doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6706 – year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib7 – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib14 – volume: 21 start-page: 651 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib16 article-title: Value: the next frontier in cancer care publication-title: Oncologist doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0174 – volume: 363 start-page: 2477 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib21 article-title: What is value in health care? publication-title: N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1011024 – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib5 – volume: 21 start-page: SP542 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib15 article-title: Is there a mathematical resolution to the cost-versus-value debate? publication-title: Am J Manag Care – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib25 – volume: 315 start-page: 2073 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib11 article-title: Toward a patient-centered value framework in oncology publication-title: JAMA doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.4637 – volume: 19 start-page: 323 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib23 article-title: Developing a measure of value in health care publication-title: Value Health doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.009 – volume: 373 start-page: 2595 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib17 article-title: Measuring the value of prescription drugs publication-title: N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1512009 – volume: 373 start-page: 2593 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib18 article-title: Value-based cancer care publication-title: N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1508387 – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib19 – volume: 48 start-page: 13230 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib1 article-title: 42 CFR part 511 Medicare program; part B drug payment model; proposed rule publication-title: Fed Regist – volume: 315 start-page: 2069 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib12 article-title: Utility of cancer value frameworks for patients, payers, and physicians publication-title: JAMA doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.4915 – year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib13 publication-title: Considerations for designing “value calculators” for oncology therapies – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib6 – volume: 34 start-page: 2925 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib4 article-title: Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received publication-title: J Clin Oncol doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2518 – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib8 – ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib26 – volume: 21 start-page: 903 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011_bib22 article-title: Value-based care in lung cancer publication-title: Oncologist doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0116
SSID	ssj0006325
Score	2.336052
Snippet	Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical... Abstract Background Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American... Background: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society...
SourceID	proquest pubmed crossref elsevier
SourceType	Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher
StartPage	200
SubjectTerms	Antineoplastic Agents - standards Cancer Confidence intervals Convergent validity Decision making Decision Support Techniques Drugs Evaluation Feedback Health care inter-rater reliability Internal Medicine Lung cancer Medical decision making Medical Oncology Oncology Pilot Projects Reliability Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity analysis Validity Value value frameworks Value-Based Purchasing
Title	Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs
URI	https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S1098301516342218 https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S1098301516342218 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28237195 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2082627605 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1872577139
Volume	20
WOSCitedRecordID	wos000396450400004&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText	1
inHoldings	1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
journalDatabaseRights	– providerCode: PRVESC databaseName: Elsevier SD Freedom Collection Journals 2021 customDbUrl: eissn: 1524-4733 dateEnd: 20181231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0006325 issn: 1098-3015 databaseCode: AIEXJ dateStart: 19980501 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.sciencedirect.com providerName: Elsevier
link	http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3Pb9MwFLbYhhAXBANGYUxGQr10mRonsZNjNToGKmUS2dSb5TiOtqpKS9Og9b_nOXaSAtsYBy5RlcRxmvfl_XDe-x5C792Uhqn0hKMogwAl8lwnzALh-F4SpMKlaVL1WLoYsfE4nEyiM5s6VFTtBFieh9fX0eK_ihr2gbB16ew_iLu5KOyA3yB02ILYYXsvwV-AZ51q39qUHs6uDBN39SUdjpWqN2jYOLXfanKzKlqGKtvxWONg2fuwLO0S-rS5blkxjJjSySaOh8vYde8YFIvofWxXTtvaj3lxWYo2IXs4s13AhmD0RNv5-bRc55d12bbaXJEAK9dvsjusEiW-4zNDcHGkbthnNS_pbyCMbKrRir30T_VuVhqmR1MQi07Lo9VSrtXWv3Bpj7_yk_PRiMfDSdxdfHd0mzH9Od72XNlCO4QFEajBncGn4eRzY7ypV_XpbW7X1lmZlMDfp73Nl7ktVql8lvgpemKDDTwwIHmGHqh8Fz36YtMpdlH3zBCXrw9x3NbhFYe4i89aSvP1czSqQYUBVHgDVHie4QoYuAUVbkGFAVQYQIUNqHAFqhfo_GQYH586tg-HIwPPXzlZlBIWCZFllCkWStfzAsWIlBkYeiL8TNCEgJudEW0sJTjRNEo86SdUqkhGynuJtvN5rl4hLCHcIOBlhlRk4MhrermE-lGfJSk44oJ0kFs_US4tSb3ulTLjdTbilGspcC0F7hIOUuigXjNmYSha7jzbqwXF6-JjMJccIHbnKHbTKFXYF7_gLi_gTP7N7UchGM0A4hwf_mnYQUEz0jq1xln964z7NYp4MwkBh50SRvtBB71rDoNB0F_5RK7mJdxIyMAMM4jsOmjPoK95LERTU7lR8Poeo9-gx-3LvY-2V8tSvUUP5Y_VVbE8QFtsEh7Yt-cnzGzeiQ
linkProvider	Elsevier
openUrl	ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity+and+Reliability+of+Value+Assessment+Frameworks+for+New+Cancer+Drugs&rft.jtitle=Value+in+health&rft.au=Bentley%2C+Tanya+G+K&rft.au=Cohen%2C+Joshua+T&rft.au=Elkin%2C+Elena+B&rft.au=Huynh%2C+Julie&rft.date=2017-02-01&rft.issn=1524-4733&rft.eissn=1524-4733&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=200&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jval.2016.12.011&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_m	http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/image/custom?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.clinicalkey.com%2Fck-thumbnails%2F10983015%2FS1098301517X00028%2Fcov150h.gif