Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules

Background The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. Grading is guided by a dual rule comparing the relative benefit (RB) and the absolute benefit (AB) achieved by the therapy to prespecified threshold values. The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 dual rule evaluates the RB of an experimental treatment based on the lower limit of the 95%CI (LL95%CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) along with an AB threshold. This dual rule addresses two goals: inclusiveness: not unfairly penalising experimental treatments from trials designed with adequate power targeting clinically meaningful relative benefit; and discernment: penalising trials designed to detect a small inconsequential benefit. Methods Based on 50 000 simulations of plausible trial scenarios, the sensitivity and specificity of the LL95%CI rule and the ESMO-MCBS dual rule, the robustness of their characteristics for reasonable power and range of targeted and true HRs, are examined. The per cent acceptance of maximal preliminary grade is compared with other dual rules based on point estimate (PE) thresholds for RB. Results For particularly small or particularly large studies, the observed benefit needs to be relatively big for the ESMO-MCBS dual rule to be satisfied and the maximal grade awarded. Compared with approaches that evaluate RB using the PE thresholds, simulations demonstrate that the MCBS approach better exhibits the desired behaviour achieving the goals of both inclusiveness and discernment. Conclusions RB assessment using the LL95%CI for HR rather than a PE threshold has two advantages: it diminishes the probability of excluding big benefit positive studies from achieving due credit and, when combined with the AB assessment, it increases the probability of downgrading a trial with a statistically significant but clinically insignificant observed benefit.

[1]  N. Leighl,et al.  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? , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  A. Sobrero The hard road to ranking the clinical benefit of antineoplastic agents: ESMO Award 2016 presentation , 2017, ESMO Open.

[3]  I. Tannock,et al.  Do Contemporary Randomized Controlled Trials Meet ESMO Thresholds for Meaningful Clinical Benefit? , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[4]  B. Godman,et al.  Utilisation of the ESMO-MCBS in practice of HTA. , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[5]  Thomas J. Smith,et al.  Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: Revisions and Reflections in Response to Comments Received. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  E. Jonasch,et al.  NCCN Evidence Blocks. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[7]  D. Kyriacou The Enduring Evolution of the P Value. , 2016, JAMA.

[8]  R. Bender,et al.  Methodological approach to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects in the early benefit assessment of new drugs , 2015, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[9]  H. Joensuu,et al.  Comment on ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[10]  B. Jönsson,et al.  Assessing The Esmo Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale From A Health Economics Perspective. , 2015, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[11]  M. Hartmann The ESMO magnitude of clinical benefit scaling tool: from theory to practice. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[12]  M. Piccart,et al.  A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[13]  Adam P Dicker,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  D. Sargent,et al.  Raising the Bar for Antineoplastic Agents: How to Choose Threshold Values for Superiority Trials in Advanced Solid Tumors , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  Yoshiaki Uyama,et al.  Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  L. Ellis,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: Raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[18]  S. Pocock,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. , 2006, JAMA.

[19]  D. Brizel,et al.  National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology , 2012 .

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials , 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  Norman Daniels,et al.  Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness , 1999, Journal of Urban Health.

[23]  N. Daniels,et al.  Accountability for reasonableness. , 2000, BMJ.

[24]  M. Gardner,et al.  Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. , 1986, British medical journal.