Multi-indication evidence synthesis in oncology health technology assessment
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Cancer drugs receive licensing extensions to include additional indications as trial evidence on treatment effectiveness accumulates. We investigate how sharing information across indications can strengthen the inferences supporting Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Methods: We applied meta-analytic methods to randomised trial data on bevacizumab to share information across cancer indications on the treatment effect on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS), and on the surrogate relationship between effects on PFS and OS. Common or random parameters were used to facilitate sharing and the further flexibility of mixture models was explored. Results: OS treatment effects lacked precision when pooling data available at present-day within each indication, particularly for indications with few trials. There was no suggestion of heterogeneity across indications. Sharing information across indications provided more precise inferences on treatment effects, and on surrogacy parameters, with the strength of sharing depending on the model. When a surrogate relationship was used to predict OS effects, uncertainty was only reduced with sharing imposed on PFS effects in addition to surrogacy parameters. Corresponding analyses using the earlier, sparser evidence available for particular HTAs showed that sharing on both surrogacy and PFS effects did not notably reduce uncertainty in OS predictions. Limited heterogeneity across indications meant that the added flexibility of mixture models was unnecessary. Conclusions: Meta-analysis methods can be usefully applied to share information on treatment effectiveness across indications to increase the precision of target indication estimates in HTA. Sharing on surrogate relationships requires caution, as meaningful precision gains require larger bodies of evidence and clear support for surrogacy from other indications.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.