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.

[1]  Jennifer E. Moore,et al.  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , 2020, Definitions.

[2]  V. Prasad,et al.  A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology. , 2019, European journal of cancer.

[3]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis , 2018, JAMA internal medicine.

[4]  N. Latimer,et al.  CHALLENGES AND METHODOLOGIES IN USING PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL AS A SURROGATE FOR OVERALL SURVIVAL IN ONCOLOGY , 2018, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  H. Naci,et al.  Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13 , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[6]  J Bogaerts,et al.  ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 , 2017, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[7]  B. Jonsson,et al.  European Medicines Agency Perspective on Oncology Study Design for Marketing Authorization and Beyond , 2017, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[8]  Aris Angelis,et al.  Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries , 2017, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[9]  M. Pavlovic.  Challenges for Relative Effectiveness Assessment and Early Access of Cancer Immunotherapies in Europe , 2016, Front. Med..

[10]  E. Griffiths,et al.  Cadth’s $50,000 Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: Fact or Fiction? , 2016 .

[11]  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.

[12]  H. Leufkens,et al.  Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries. , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[13]  N. Devlin,et al.  The Influence of Cost-Effectiveness and Other Factors on NICE Decisions , 2010, Health economics.

[14]  J. Kreeftmeijer,et al.  Hierarchy of clinical endpoints in HTA decision making in Oncology , 2015 .

[15]  N. Ready,et al.  Surrogate clinical endpoints to predict overall survival in non-small cell lung cancer trials-are we in a new era? , 2015, Translational lung cancer research.

[16]  D. Heo,et al.  International comparison of the factors influencing reimbursement of targeted anti-cancer drugs , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[17]  R. Goeree,et al.  Surrogate outcomes: experiences at the Common Drug Review , 2013, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation.

[18]  Ron Goeree,et al.  Harmonization of reimbursement and regulatory approval processes: a systematic review of international experiences , 2013, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[19]  E. Basch,et al.  Progression-Free Survival: What Does It Mean for Psychological Well-Being or Quality of Life? , 2013 .

[20]  T. Fleming,et al.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  J. Cappelleri,et al.  Review of meta-analyses evaluating surrogate endpoints for overall survival in oncology , 2012, OncoTargets and therapy.

[22]  E. Eisenhauer,et al.  Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  Anthony J. Culyer,et al.  The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[24]  V. Montori,et al.  Advanced topics in evidence-based urologic oncology: surrogate endpoints. , 2011, Urologic oncology.

[25]  Jing Jing Li,et al.  Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. , 2009, JAMA.

[26]  M. Velasco Garrido,et al.  Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: An international comparison , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[27]  J. Elston,et al.  Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports1 , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[28]  U. Tirelli,et al.  Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: a current, multidisciplinary perspective. , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[29]  M. Ellis,et al.  Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: a current, multidisciplinary perspective. , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[30]  D. Menon,et al.  The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[31]  A. Culyer,et al.  The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. , 2008, PharmacoEconomics.