Developing Clinical Recommendations for Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Adjuvant Treatments Using the GRADE System: A Study From the Programma Ricerca e Innovazione Emilia Romagna Oncology Research Group

Author:

De Palma Rossana1,Liberati Alessandro1,Ciccone Giovannino1,Bandieri Elena1,Belfiglio Maurizio1,Ceccarelli Manuela1,Leoni Maurizio1,Longo Giuseppe1,Magrini Nicola1,Marangolo Maurizio1,Roila Fausto1

Affiliation:

1. From the Agenzia Sanitaria Regionale Regione Emilia Romagna, Bologna; Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia; Centro Valutazione Efficacia Assistenza Sanitaria, AUSL Modena; Centro Prevenzione Oncologica, Azienda Ospedaliera Molinette, Torino; Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, Santa Maria Inbaro, Chieti, Italy; Azienda Sanitaria Locale Ravenna; and the Azienda Ospedaliero Policlinico, Perugia, Italy

Abstract

Purpose In the area of anticancer drugs, the legitimate search for effective interventions can be jeopardized by the strong pressure for accelerated approval, which may hinder the full assessment of their benefit-risk profile. We aimed to produce drug-specific recommendations using an explicit approach that separates the judgments on quality of evidence from the judgment about strength of recommendations. Materials and Methods We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system to develop recommendations for the use of specific anticancer drugs/regimens; 12 clinical questions relevant to adjuvant treatment of breast (three), colorectal (four) and lung (five) cancer have been assessed by multidisciplinary panels supported by a group of methodologists. Results For nine of 12 questions, recommendations were produced (one strong and six weak in favor and one weak and one strong against the index treatment); for the remaining three questions no specific course of action could be recommended. The perceived benefits to risk balance of the treatment was the most important and statistically significant (P < .01) predictor of panels’ recommendations and of their strength, whereas panelists’ personal (age, sex) and professional (specialty) characteristics were not statistically associated. Conclusion Because the GRADE system sets out an explicit process going from evaluation of the quality of evidence and benefit-risk profile to the judgment of the strength of recommendations, in this experience, it proved very useful to combine methodologic rigor with the interdisciplinary participation that is important in the definition of evidence based clinical policies.

Publisher

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

Reference26 articles.

1. Introducing new health interventions

2. Health technology assessment in England and Wales

3. Evaluating and implementing new services

4. De Palma R, Liberati A: Il Programma Ricerca e Innovazione della Regione Emiliaqqhyphen Romagna (PRI ER): Un approccio nello sviluppo della ricerca nel e per il servizio sanitario. Techne 10:171,2006-174,

5. Beyond Fast Track for Drug Approvals

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3