10 research outputs found

    Which medical disciplines diagnose and treat melanoma in Europe in 2019? A survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries

    No full text
    Background and objectives: The incidence of melanoma is increasing. This places significant burden on societies to provide efficient cancer care. The European Cancer Organisation recently published the essential requirements for quality melanoma care. The present study is aimed for the first time to roughly estimate the extent to which these requirements have been met in Europe. Materials and methods: A web-based survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries was conducted from 1 February to 1 August 2019. Data on diagnostic techniques, surgical and medical treatment, organization of cancer care and education were collected and correlated with national health and economic indicators and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) as a surrogate for survival. Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the correlations. SPSS software was used. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The MIR was lower in countries with a high health expenditure per capita and with a higher numbers of general practitioners (GPs) and surgeons (SURG) per million inhabitants. In these countries, GPs and dermatologists (DER) were involved in melanoma detection; high percentage of DER used dermatoscopy and were involved in the follow-up of all melanoma stages; both medical oncologists (ONC) and dermato-oncologists administered systemic treatments; and patients had better access to sentinel lymph node biopsy and were treated within multidisciplinary tumour boards. Conclusion: Based on these first estimates, the greater involvement of GPs in melanoma detection; the greater involvement of highly trained DER in dermatoscopy, dermatosurgery, follow-up and the systemic treatment of melanoma; and the provision of ongoing dermato-oncology training for pathologists, SURG, DER and ONC are necessary to provide an optimal melanoma care pathway. A comprehensive analysis of the melanoma care pathway based on clinical melanoma registries will be needed to more accurately evaluate these first insights. © 2020 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereolog

    Access to innovative medicines for metastatic melanoma worldwide: Melanoma World Society and European Association of Dermato-oncology survey in 34 countries

    No full text
    According to data from recent studies from Europe, a large percentage of patients have restricted access to innovative medicines for metastatic melanoma. Melanoma World Society and European Association of Dermato-oncology conducted a Web-based survey on access to first-line recommended treatments for metastatic melanoma by current guidelines (National Comprehensive Center Network, European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO] and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Association of Dermato-oncology/European dermatology Forum) among melanoma experts from 27 European countries, USA, China, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico from September 1st, 2017 to July 1st, 2018. Data on licencing and reimbursement of medicines and the number of patient treated were correlated with the data on health expenditure per capita (HEPC), Mackenbach score of health policy performance, health technology assessment (HTA), ASCO and ESMO Magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO MCBS) scores of clinical benefit and market price of medicines. Regression analysis for evaluation of correlation between the parameters was carried out using SPSS software. The estimated number of patients without access in surveyed countries was 13768. The recommended BRAFi + MEKi combination and anti-PD1 immunotherapy were fully reimbursed/covered in 19 of 34 (55.8%) and 17 of 34 (50%) countries, and combination anti-CTLA4+anti-PD1 in was fully covered in 6 of 34 (17.6%) countries. Median delay in reimbursement was 991 days, and it was in significant correlation with ESMO MCBS (p = 0.02), median market price (p = 0.001), HEPC and Mackenbach scores (p < 0.01). Price negotiations or managed entry agreements (MEAs) with national authorities were necessary for reimbursement. In conclusion, great discrepancy exists in metastatic melanoma treatment globally. Access to innovative medicines is in correlation with economic parameters as well as with healthcare system performance parameters. Patient-oriented drug development, market access and reimbursement pathways must be urgently found

    Which medical disciplines diagnose and treat melanoma in Europe in 2019? A survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries

    No full text
    BACKGROUNDAND OBJECTIVES: Theincidence of melanoma isincreasing. This placessignificant burden onsocieties to provide efficient cancer care.TheEuropean Cancer Organisation recentlypublished theessential requirements for quality melanoma care. The present studyis aimed for the first time to roughly estimate theextentto whichthese requirementshave been metin Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Aweb-based surveyofexperts from melanoma centersin27 European countries was conducted from1February to1August, 2019. Data on diagnostic techniques, surgical and medical treatment, organisation of cancer care and education were collected and correlated with national health and economic indicators andmortality-to-incidence ratio(MIR)as a surrogate for survival. Univariate linear regression analysiswas performed toevaluatethecorrelations.SPSS softwarewas used. Statistical significancewasset atp<0.05. RESULTS: TheMIR was lower in countries withahigh health expenditure per capita and with a highernumbersof general practitioners (GPs) and surgeons per million inhabitants. In these countries,GPs and dermatologistswere involved in melanoma detection; high percentage of dermatologistsuseddermatoscopy and wereinvolved in the follow-up of allmelanoma stages; both medical oncologists and dermato-oncologistsadministeredsystemic treatments and patients hadbetter access to sentinel lymph nodebiopsy and were treated within multidisciplinary tumour boards CONCLUSION: Based on these first estimates, thegreater involvement of GPs in melanoma detection;thegreater involvement of highly trained dermatologists in dermatoscopy, dermatosurgery, follow-up andthesystemic treatment of melanoma;andthe provision of ongoingdermato-oncology training for pathologists, surgeons, dermatologists and medical oncologists are necessary toprovide anoptimal melanoma care pathway. A comprehensive analysis of the melanoma care pathway based on clinical melanoma registries, will be needed to more accurately evaluate these first insights

    More than 5000 patients with metastatic melanoma in Europe per year do not have access to recommended first-line innovative treatments

    Get PDF
    Background Despite the efficacy of innovative treatments for metastatic melanoma, their high costs has led to disparities in cancer care among different European countries. We analysed the availability of these innovative therapies in Europe and estimated the number of patients without access to first-line recommended treatment per current guidelines of professional entities such as the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), and European Dermatology Forum (EDF). Materials and methods Web-based online survey was conducted in 30 European countries with questions about the treatment schedules from 1st May 2015 to 1st May 2016: number of metastatic melanoma patients, registration and reimbursement of innovative medicines (updated data, as of 1st October 2016), percentage of patients treated and availability of clinical studies and compassionate-use programmes. Results The recommended BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) + MEK inhibitor (MEKi) combination was both registered and fully reimbursed in 9/30 (30%) countries, and in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. First-line immunotherapy with anti-PD1 antibodies was registered and fully reimbursed in 14/30 (47%) countries, while in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. It was estimated that in Europe 19,600 patients with metastatic melanoma are treated, and 5238 (27%) do not have access to recommended first-line therapy. Significant correlation was found between human development index (HDI, UNDP report 2015), (r = 0.662; p < 0.001), health expenditure per capita (r = 0.695; p < 0.001) and the Mackenbach score of health policy performance (r = 0.765; p < 0.001) with the percentage of patients treated with innovative medicines and a number of reimbursed medicines. Conclusions Great discrepancy exists in metastatic melanoma treatment across Europe. It is crucial to increase the awareness of national and European policymakers, oncological societies, melanoma patients' associations and pharma industry

    What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries

    Get PDF
    Background Decisions on the reimbursement of the same cancer drugs are different across European countries, but empirical work on the reasons behind these differences has been scarce. The main objective of this paper is to make a methodological contribution to existing research, specifically by outlining the systematic process of analysis to address such questions and determining the factors that might lead to different drug reimbursement decisions, and to explore its application in the field of oncology. Methods Reimbursement decisions on cancer drugs in six European countries (Belgium, England, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, and Sweden) between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. A taxonomy was developed, comprising two groups of variables (system-level and product-specific) and an econometric model was specified (multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit). Results Only one in six evaluations in the sample reach the same reimbursement recommendation. Most health system variables were not determinants of a higher or lower probability of a positive reimbursement recommendation. However, the probability of reimbursement was higher when a drug was considered cost-effective by NICE/SMC and when there was a financial Managed Entry Agreement. This work also demonstrated a possible econometric approach for analysing differences in reimbursement decisions and contributes a structured approach for collecting and preparing data for such analyses. Conclusions Drug reimbursement decisions can be analysed in detail along a set of factors that are related to each decision. This information is essential, not only for understanding why a particular drug is accepted in one country and not in another but also when trying to implement a new HTA system or reform an existing one. This analysis provides policy makers and stakeholders with a model that enables a better understanding of the factors that drive HTA decisions and is adaptable to answer similar questions. Moreover, the data collection limitations encountered and described in this work shed light on the need for greater accessibility and transparency in HTA systems and regarding HTA outcomes.This research was funded under the European 7th Framework Programme with Advance-HTA (no305,983). The results presented reflect the author’s views. The EC is not liable for any use of the information communicated
    corecore