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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35323356)

  • 1. Is It Time to Commit to a Process to Re-Evaluate Oncology Drugs? A Descriptive Analysis of Systemic Therapies for Solid Tumour Indications Reviewed in Canada from 2017 to 2021.
    Sehdev S; Chambers A
    Curr Oncol; 2022 Mar; 29(3):1919-1931. PubMed ID: 35323356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia.
    Ball G; Levine MAH; Thabane L; Tarride JE
    Curr Oncol; 2022 Oct; 29(10):7624-7636. PubMed ID: 36290879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Timeliness of Health Technology Assessments and Price Negotiations for Oncology Drugs in Canada.
    Rawson NSB; Stewart DJ
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2024; 16():437-445. PubMed ID: 38812711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. FDA Accelerated Approval for Malignant Hematology and Oncology Indications in the Canadian Environment.
    Ho C; Lim HJ; Regier DA
    Curr Oncol; 2022 Jan; 29(2):402-410. PubMed ID: 35200536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada.
    Meyers DE; Jenei K; Chisamore TM; Gyawali B
    JAMA Intern Med; 2021 Apr; 181(4):499-508. PubMed ID: 33616606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Health-related quality of life in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: A review of submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.
    Raymakers AJN; Regier DA; Peacock SJ
    Cancer; 2020 Jan; 126(1):148-155. PubMed ID: 31544234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Do Reimbursement Recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Translate Into Coverage Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Canadian Province of Ontario?
    Fontrier AM; Kanavos P
    Value Health; 2023 Jul; 26(7):1011-1021. PubMed ID: 36889379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs supported by phase II evidence in Canada.
    Li YYR; Mai H; Trudeau ME; Mittmann N; Chiasson K; Chan KKW; Cheung MC
    Curr Oncol; 2020 Oct; 27(5):e495-e500. PubMed ID: 33173389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences.
    Chabot I; Rocchi A
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2014; 6():357-67. PubMed ID: 25075196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Health technology assessment and price negotiation alignment for rare disorder drugs in Canada: Who benefits?
    Rawson NSB
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2022 Jun; 17(1):218. PubMed ID: 35698235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada.
    Nagase FNI; Stafinski T; Sun J; Jhangri G; Menon D
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2019 Jun; 14(1):127. PubMed ID: 31174574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Health technology assessment of drugs for rare diseases: insights, trends, and reasons for negative recommendations from the CADTH common drug review.
    Janoudi G; Amegatse W; McIntosh B; Sehgal C; Richter T
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2016 Dec; 11(1):164. PubMed ID: 27908281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characteristics of drugs for ultra-rare diseases versus drugs for other rare diseases in HTA submissions made to the CADTH CDR.
    Richter T; Janoudi G; Amegatse W; Nester-Parr S
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2018 Feb; 13(1):15. PubMed ID: 29386040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries?
    Scott AM
    Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 27028134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of Oncology Drug Review Times on Public Funding Recommendations.
    Hussain M; Wong C; Taguedong E; Verma S; Mahsin M; Karim S; Lee-Ying R; Ezeife DA
    Curr Oncol; 2023 Aug; 30(8):7706-7712. PubMed ID: 37623039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.
    Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S
    Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.