185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30853815)
21. Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?
Cheng S; McDonald EJ; Cheung MC; Arciero VS; Qureshi M; Jiang D; Ezeife D; Sabharwal M; Chambers A; Han D; Leighl N; Sabarre KA; Chan KKW
J Clin Oncol; 2017 Aug; 35(24):2764-2771. PubMed ID: 28574778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparing Manufacturer Submitted and Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Reanalysed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Novel Oncology Drugs.
Saluja R; Jiao T; Koshy L; Cheung M; Chan KKW
Curr Oncol; 2021 Jan; 28(1):606-618. PubMed ID: 33498460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Are We Making a Difference? A Qualitative Study of Patient Engagement at the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: Perspectives of Patient Groups.
Mercer RE; Chambers A; Mai H; McDonald V; McMahon C; Chan KKW
Value Health; 2020 Sep; 23(9):1157-1162. PubMed ID: 32940233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.
Keech J; Beca J; Eisen A; Kennedy E; Kim J; Kouroukis CT; Darling G; Ferguson SE; Finelli A; Petrella TM; Perry JR; Chan K; Gavura S
Curr Oncol; 2019 Apr; 26(2):e155-e161. PubMed ID: 31043821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Evaluation of Anti-cancer Therapies with Reimbursement Limited to Comprehensive Cancer Centres Using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale].
Büchler T; Melichar B; Vrána D; Lemstrová R; Fínek J; Dušek L; Petráková K; Prausová J
Klin Onkol; 2017; 30(5):349-360. PubMed ID: 29031037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. European Medicines Agency Perspective on Oncology Study Design for Marketing Authorization and Beyond.
Jonsson B; Martinalbo J; Pignatti F
Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2017 May; 101(5):577-579. PubMed ID: 28073148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.
Rocchi A; Chabot I; Glennie J
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 7():287-98. PubMed ID: 26082654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Impact of rarity on Canadian oncology health technology assessment and funding.
Keech J; Dai WF; Trudeau M; Mercer RE; Naipaul R; Wright FC; Ferguson SE; Darling G; Gavura S; Eisen A; Kouroukis CT; Beca J; Chan KKW
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020 Aug; ():1-6. PubMed ID: 32779560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Activities of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance: An Observational Analysis.
Rocchi A; Mills F
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol; 2018 Aug; 25(2):e12-e22. PubMed ID: 30725539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Impact of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review on provincial concordance with respect to cancer drug funding decisions and time to funding.
Srikanthan A; Mai H; Penner N; Amir E; Laupacis A; Sabharwal M; Chan KKW
Curr Oncol; 2017 Oct; 24(5):295-301. PubMed ID: 29089796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Health Technology Assessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Impact of CADTH Changes on Public Payer Reimbursement Recommendations.
Binder L; Ghadban M; Sit C; Barnard K
Curr Oncol; 2022 Mar; 29(3):1514-1526. PubMed ID: 35323327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison.
Skedgel C
Curr Oncol; 2016 Oct; 23(5):322-328. PubMed ID: 27803596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand.
McCormick JI; Berescu LD; Tadros N
Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2018 Jan; 13(1):27. PubMed ID: 29382371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Many new cancer drugs in the United Kingdom are facing negative NICE rulings.
Low E;
J Clin Oncol; 2007 Jun; 25(18):2635-6; author reply 2637-8. PubMed ID: 17577049
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Challenges in striving to simultaneously achieve multiple resource allocation goals: the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) example.
McDonald H; Charles C; Elit L; Gafni A
J Mark Access Health Policy; 2016; 4():. PubMed ID: 27489586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The impact of cancer drug wastage on economic evaluations.
Truong J; Cheung MC; Mai H; Letargo J; Chambers A; Sabharwal M; Trudeau ME; Chan KKW
Cancer; 2017 Sep; 123(18):3583-3590. PubMed ID: 28640362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
