![]() ESMO-MCBS gave grade 5 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 4 to pazopanib, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and cabozantinib plus nivolumab, 3 to axitinib plus avelumab or pembrolizumab. A higher score means a greater treatment benefit. ASCO VF’s net health benefit, calculated as clinical benefit, toxicity and other bonus point was 11 in pazopanib, 41.9 in nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 22.4 in axitinib plus avelumab, 48.7 in axitinib plus pembrolizumab, 35.2 in lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and 50.8 in cabozantinib plus nivolumab. The control arm was standard-of-care sunitinib in all trials. Six trials (COMPARZ, CheckMate 214, JAVELIN renal 101, Keynote 426, CLEAR, and CheckMate 9ER) were assessed. Equivocal aspects and limitations of the tools were discussed. Follow-up (FU) reports and extended survival data were included. ![]() Two medical oncologists used American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO VF) v2.0 and European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS) v1.1 to phase 3 trials evaluating first-line therapy in patients with metastatic RCC. ![]() This study reviews the value assessment tools, and evaluates the value of emerging therapeutics in RCC. Value including clinical benefit, toxicity affecting quality of life and cost-effectiveness are a concern, prompting the need for tools to facilitate value assessment of therapeutics. Rapid development of novel therapeutics in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to financial burden for patients and society.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |