Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Early health technology assessment is increasingly being used to support health economic evidence development during early stages of clinical research. Such early models can be used to inform research and development about the design and management of new medical technologies to mitigate the risks, perceived by industry and the public sector, associated with market access and reimbursement. Over the past 25 years it has been suggested that health economic evaluation in the early stages may benefit the development and diffusion of medical products. Early health technology assessment has been suggested in the context of iterative economic evaluation alongside phase I and II clinical research to inform clinical trial design, market access, and pricing. In addition, performing early health technology assessment was also proposed at an even earlier stage for managing technology portfolios. This scoping review suggests a generally accepted definition of early health technology assessment to be “all methods used to inform industry and other stakeholders about the potential value of new medical products in development, including methods to quantify and manage uncertainty”. The present review also aimed to identify recent published empirical studies employing an early-stage assessment of a medical product. With most included studies carried out to support a market launch, the dominant methodology was early health economic modeling. Further methodological development is required, in particular, by combining systems engineering and health economics to manage uncertainty in medical product portfolios

Close cooperation with Health Technology Assessment expertise is crucial for implementation and ultimately reimbursement of innovations in oncology

The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes OECI working group on Health Economics and Cost Benefit in Oncology suggests four actions that are needed to improve alignment and integration between clinicians, researchers, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts and agencies: 1) HTA expertise is necessary close to or within the comprehensive cancer centres (CCC); 2) HTA expertise should be physically present throughout the translational research process; 3) Appropriate knowledge is necessary within the research staff; 4) Close cooperation between translational researchers, clinicians, and health economists guarantees clinical ownership. Fulfilling these conditions may help the translational research field in oncology to interact with agencies and efficiently move innovative technologies through the translational research stages into that of implementation and diffusion. This brings innovative treatments faster to the patient with a greater chance of reimbursement

A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study

The 70-gene signature (MammaPrint™) has been developed on retrospective series of breast cancer patients to predict the risk of breast cancer distant metastases. The microarRAy-prognoSTics-in-breast-cancER (RASTER) study was the first study designed to prospectively evaluate the performance of the 70-gene signature, which result was available for 427 patients (cT1–3N0M0). Adjuvant systemic treatment decisions were based on the Dutch CBO 2004 guidelines, the 70-gene signature and doctors' and patients' preferences. Five-year distant-recurrence-free-interval (DRFI) probabilities were compared between subgroups based on the 70-gene signature and Adjuvant! Online (AOL) (10-year survival probability <90% was defined as high-risk). Median follow-up was 61.6 months. Fifteen percent (33/219) of the 70-gene signature low-risk patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) versus 81% (169/208) of the 70-gene signature high-risk patients. The 5-year DRFI probabilities for 70-gene signature low-risk (n = 219) and high-risk (n = 208) patients were 97.0% and 91.7%. The 5-year DRFI probabilities for AOL low-risk (n = 132) and high-risk (n = 295) patients were 96.7% and 93.4%. For 70-gene signature low-risk–AOL high-risk patients (n = 124), of whom 76% (n = 94) had not received ACT, 5-year DRFI was 98.4%. In the AOL high-risk group, 32% (94/295) less patients would be eligible to receive ACT if the 70-gene signature was used. In this prospective community-based observational study, the 5-year DRFI probabilities confirmed the additional prognostic value of the 70-gene signature to clinicopathological risk estimations such as AOL. Omission of adjuvant chemotherapy as judged appropriate by doctors and patients and instigated by a low-risk 70-gene signature result, appeared not to compromise outcome