International HTA Experience with Targeted Therapy Approvals for Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the listing success rates and time incurred to listing of recently approved lung cancer medications across Australia, Canada and England. METHODS: A comparison between the three countries was performed with respect to the listing status, time incurred for listing and differences in recommendations made for cost effectiveness. Major uncertainties and limitations that compromise health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations were identified. RESULTS: The listing success rate was found to be low across all three countries (33% Canada, 17% England and 8% Australia). Across the HTA agencies' reviews, comparators were either dissimilar or altered for effectiveness and/or economic analysis. Overall, limited evidence was found for all indications, and uncertainties were identified due to indirect analyses (70%) and survival extrapolation (100%). Although most of the indications were concluded to be not cost effective, some were subsequently listed (47%) at a reduced price and/or with a specific access programme. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a low listing success rate for novel lung therapies internationally within different HTA jurisdictions. Major uncertainties that are resistant to available solutions seem to be common across different countries; thus, international solutions would be beneficial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".