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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27712717)

  • 1. Did It Matter That the Cancer Drugs Fund Was Not NICE? A Retrospective Review.
    Dixon P; Chamberlain C; Hollingworth W
    Value Health; 2016; 19(6):879-884. PubMed ID: 27712717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A Tale of Two Thresholds: A Framework for Prioritization within the Cancer Drugs Fund.
    Leigh S; Granby P
    Value Health; 2016; 19(5):567-76. PubMed ID: 27565274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?-lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund.
    Aggarwal A; Fojo T; Chamberlain C; Davis C; Sullivan R
    Ann Oncol; 2017 Aug; 28(8):1738-1750. PubMed ID: 28453615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Will the reformed Cancer Drugs Fund address the most common types of uncertainty? An analysis of NICE cancer drug appraisals.
    Morrell L; Wordsworth S; Schuh A; Middleton MR; Rees S; Barker RW
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 May; 18(1):393. PubMed ID: 29855313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Moral ambivalence towards the Cancer Drugs Fund.
    Epanomeritakis IE
    J Med Ethics; 2019 Sep; 45(9):623-626. PubMed ID: 31311855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain.
    Linley WG; Hughes DA
    Health Econ; 2013 Aug; 22(8):948-64. PubMed ID: 22961976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Most drugs paid for by £1.27bn Cancer Drugs Fund had no "meaningful benefit".
    Cohen D
    BMJ; 2017 Apr; 357():j2097. PubMed ID: 28455308
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Does the cancer drugs fund lead to faster uptake of cost-effective drugs? A time-trend analysis comparing England and Wales.
    Chamberlain C; Collin SM; Stephens P; Donovan J; Bahl A; Hollingworth W
    Br J Cancer; 2014 Oct; 111(9):1693-702. PubMed ID: 24569469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. "What's fair to an individual is not always fair to a population": A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund.
    Chamberlain C; Owen-Smith A; MacKichan F; Donovan JL; Hollingworth W
    Health Policy; 2019 Aug; 123(8):706-712. PubMed ID: 31279588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Cancer Drugs Fund in Practice and Under the New Framework.
    Sabry-Grant C; Malottki K; Diamantopoulos A
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2019 Jul; 37(7):953-962. PubMed ID: 30941698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. UK newspaper reporting of the NHS cancer drugs fund, 2010 to 2015: a retrospective media analysis.
    Lewison G; Aggarwal A; Roe P; Møller H; Chamberlain C; Sullivan R
    J R Soc Med; 2018 Oct; 111(10):366-373. PubMed ID: 30212638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The concept of exceptionality: a legal farce?
    Ford A
    Med Law Rev; 2012; 20(3):304-36. PubMed ID: 22389444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An Analysis of Uncertainties and Data Collection Agreements in the Cancer Drugs Fund.
    Trigg LA; Barnish MS; Hayward S; Shaw N; Crathorne L; Groves B; Spoors J; Strong T; Melendez-Torres GJ; Farmer C
    Pharmacoecon Open; 2024 Mar; 8(2):303-311. PubMed ID: 38087151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Differences in cancer drug assessment between Spain and the United Kingdom.
    Lozano-Blázquez A; Dickson R; Fraga-Fuentes MD; Martínez-Martínez F; Calleja-Hernández MÁ
    Eur J Cancer; 2015 Sep; 51(13):1843-52. PubMed ID: 26119375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström's Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.
    Tappenden P; Carroll C; Stevens J; Simpson E; Thokala P; Wong R; Wright J; Auer R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2019 Jan; 37(1):7-18. PubMed ID: 29951793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Liver cancer drug is rejected for routine NHS use but will remain in Cancer Drugs Fund.
    Torjesen I
    BMJ; 2017 Jan; 356():i6864. PubMed ID: 28049164
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Public funding of new cancer drugs: Is NICE getting nastier?
    Mason AR; Drummond MF
    Eur J Cancer; 2009 May; 45(7):1188-1192. PubMed ID: 19138512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. MPs find no evidence that Cancer Drugs Fund was spent wisely.
    Hawkes N
    BMJ; 2016 Feb; 352():i755. PubMed ID: 26850036
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Having your cake and eating it: office of fair trading proposal for funding new drugs to benefit patients and innovative companies.
    Godman B; Haycox A; Schwabe U; Joppi R; Garattini S
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2008; 26(2):91-8. PubMed ID: 18198930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Review of Issues Affecting the Efficiency of Decision Making in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process.
    Walton MJ; O'Connor J; Carroll C; Claxton L; Hodgson R
    Pharmacoecon Open; 2019 Sep; 3(3):403-410. PubMed ID: 30617953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.