Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb;20(2):200-205.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011. Epub 2017 Feb 10.

Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs

Affiliations
Free article

Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs

Tanya G K Bentley et al. Value Health. 2017 Feb.
Free article

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.

Keywords: convergent validity; inter-rater reliability; oncology; value frameworks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

  • This is a call to oncologists for action.
    Micó C, Berrocal A, Blasco A, Caballero C, Iranzo V, Lobo M, Camps C. Micó C, et al. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018 Dec;20(12):1493-1501. doi: 10.1007/s12094-018-1887-3. Epub 2018 May 23. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018. PMID: 29796999 Review.
  • Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study.
    Zhang Z, Wang G, Wu Y, Guo J, Ding N, Jiang B, Wei H, Li B, Yue W, Tian J. Zhang Z, et al. BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 9;11(4):e045550. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045550. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 33837104 Free PMC article.
  • Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission.
    Jaffee EM, Dang CV, Agus DB, Alexander BM, Anderson KC, Ashworth A, Barker AD, Bastani R, Bhatia S, Bluestone JA, Brawley O, Butte AJ, Coit DG, Davidson NE, Davis M, DePinho RA, Diasio RB, Draetta G, Frazier AL, Futreal A, Gambhir SS, Ganz PA, Garraway L, Gerson S, Gupta S, Heath J, Hoffman RI, Hudis C, Hughes-Halbert C, Ibrahim R, Jadvar H, Kavanagh B, Kittles R, Le QT, Lippman SM, Mankoff D, Mardis ER, Mayer DK, McMasters K, Meropol NJ, Mitchell B, Naredi P, Ornish D, Pawlik TM, Peppercorn J, Pomper MG, Raghavan D, Ritchie C, Schwarz SW, Sullivan R, Wahl R, Wolchok JD, Wong SL, Yung A. Jaffee EM, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):e653-e706. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30698-8. Epub 2017 Oct 31. Lancet Oncol. 2017. PMID: 29208398 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Incorporating health equity into value assessment: frameworks, promising alternatives, and future directions.
    Diaby V, Ali A, Babcock A, Fuhr J, Braithwaite D. Diaby V, et al. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Sep;27(9-a Suppl):S22-S29. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.9-a.s22. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021. PMID: 34579542 Free PMC article.
  • Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets.
    Godman B, Bucsics A, Vella Bonanno P, Oortwijn W, Rothe CC, Ferrario A, Bosselli S, Hill A, Martin AP, Simoens S, Kurdi A, Gad M, Gulbinovič J, Timoney A, Bochenek T, Salem A, Hoxha I, Sauermann R, Massele A, Guerra AA Jr, Petrova G, Mitkova Z, Achniotou G, Laius O, Sermet C, Selke G, Kourafalos V, Yfantopoulos J, Magnusson E, Joppi R, Oluka M, Kwon HY, Jakupi A, Kalemeera F, Fadare JO, Melien O, Pomorski M, Wladysiuk M, Marković-Peković V, Mardare I, Meshkov D, Novakovic T, Fürst J, Tomek D, Zara C, Diogene E, Meyer JC, Malmström R, Wettermark B, Matsebula Z, Campbell S, Haycox A. Godman B, et al. Front Public Health. 2018 Dec 5;6:328. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00328. eCollection 2018. Front Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30568938 Free PMC article. Review.

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources