These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
954 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26032135)
1. A Time-Trend Economic Analysis of Cancer Drug Trials. Cressman S; Browman GP; Hoch JS; Kovacic L; Peacock SJ Oncologist; 2015 Jul; 20(7):729-36. PubMed ID: 26032135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Delivery of meaningful cancer care: a retrospective cohort study assessing cost and benefit with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks. Del Paggio JC; Sullivan R; Schrag D; Hopman WM; Azariah B; Pramesh CS; Tannock IF; Booth CM Lancet Oncol; 2017 Jul; 18(7):887-894. PubMed ID: 28583794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How do cost-effectiveness analyses inform reimbursement decisions for oncology medicines in Canada? The example of sunitinib for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Chabot I; Rocchi A Value Health; 2010; 13(6):837-45. PubMed ID: 20561332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical benefit, reimbursement outcomes, and prices of FDA-approved cancer drugs reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, England, and Scotland: a retrospective, comparative analysis. Jenei K; Gentilini A; Haslam A; Prasad V Lancet Oncol; 2024 Aug; 25(8):979-988. PubMed ID: 39004098 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. Rocchi A; Menon D; Verma S; Miller E Value Health; 2008; 11(4):771-83. PubMed ID: 18179658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. New Cancer Drug Approvals From the Perspective of a Universal Healthcare System: Analyses of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Recommendations. Niraula S; Nugent Z J Natl Compr Canc Netw; 2018 Dec; 16(12):1460-1466. PubMed ID: 30545993 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada. Yong JH; Beca J; Hoch JS Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Mar; 31(3):229-36. PubMed ID: 23322588 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. Meropol NJ; Schrag D; Smith TJ; Mulvey TM; Langdon RM; Blum D; Ubel PA; Schnipper LE; J Clin Oncol; 2009 Aug; 27(23):3868-74. PubMed ID: 19581533 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Chim L; Kelly PJ; Salkeld G; Stockler MR Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(6):463-75. PubMed ID: 20465315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Continental Divide? The attitudes of US and Canadian oncologists on the costs, cost-effectiveness, and health policies associated with new cancer drugs. Berry SR; Bell CM; Ubel PA; Evans WK; Nadler E; Strevel EL; Neumann PJ J Clin Oncol; 2010 Sep; 28(27):4149-53. PubMed ID: 20697077 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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. Pinto A; Naci H; Neez E; Mossialos E Value Health; 2020 Mar; 23(3):319-327. PubMed ID: 32197727 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies. Drummond MF; Mason AR J Clin Oncol; 2007 Jan; 25(2):191-5. PubMed ID: 17210939 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. Clement FM; Harris A; Li JJ; Yong K; Lee KM; Manns BJ JAMA; 2009 Oct; 302(13):1437-43. PubMed ID: 19809025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. Mittmann N; Au HJ; Tu D; O'Callaghan CJ; Isogai PK; Karapetis CS; Zalcberg JR; Evans WK; Moore MJ; Siddiqui J; Findlay B; Colwell B; Simes J; Gibbs P; Links M; Tebbutt NC; Jonker DJ; ; J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Sep; 101(17):1182-92. PubMed ID: 19666851 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Current and Future Oncology Management in the United States. Runyan A; Banks J; Bruni DS J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2019 Feb; 25(2):272-281. PubMed ID: 30698085 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Outcome and economic implications of proteomic test-guided second- or third-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: extended analysis of the PROSE trial. Hornberger J; Hirsch FR; Li Q; Page RD Lung Cancer; 2015 May; 88(2):223-30. PubMed ID: 25804732 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Value assessment in oncology drugs: funding of drugs for metastatic breast cancer in Canada. Lemieux J; Audet S Curr Oncol; 2018 Jun; 25(Suppl 1):S161-S170. PubMed ID: 29910659 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness analysis of three regimens using vinorelbine (Navelbine) for non-small cell lung cancer. Hillner BE; Smith TJ Semin Oncol; 1996 Apr; 23(2 Suppl 5):25-30. PubMed ID: 8610234 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Compared to US practice, evidence-based reviews in Europe appear to lead to lower prices for some drugs. Cohen J; Malins A; Shahpurwala Z Health Aff (Millwood); 2013 Apr; 32(4):762-70. PubMed ID: 23569057 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]