[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-332771-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":85,"doc-detail-332771-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":84},105,"en","evidence-of-clinical-benefit-of-cancer-medicines-considered-for-funding-in-australia","Evidence of Clinical Benefit of Cancer Medicines Considered for Funding in Australia","","Objectives: Describe the type of evidence and the clinical benefit of cancer medicines assessed for funding in Australia by the PBAC and evaluate it using the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1. Methods: Extracted PBAC application data from 2010–2020; retrieved ESMO-MCBS ratings from the ESMO-MCBS website. Results: 182 indications for 100 medicines; 75.3% recommended. RCTs dominated evidence; OS benefits occurred in 44% with median gains reported.",{"@graph":14,"@context":77},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/evidence-of-clinical-benefit-of-cancer-medicines-considered-for-funding-in-australia/332771/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/evidence-of-clinical-benefit-of-cancer-medicines-considered-for-funding-in-australia/332771.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Quinn","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69,73],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the study’s main objective?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To describe the evidence types and clinical benefit of cancer medicines assessed for Australian funding by PBAC, and evaluate those benefits using ESMO-MCBS version 1.1.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How were the evidence data and ESMO-MCBS ratings obtained?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"All PBAC application data from 2010 to 2020 were extracted from PBAC Public Summary Documents, and ESMO-MCBS ratings were retrieved from the ESMO-MCBS website.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What proportion of indications were recommended for PBS funding, and what evidence type dominated?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Of 182 indications, 75.3% were recommended for PBS funding. Randomized clinical trials were the main evidence source for 84.6% of indications.",{"name":74,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Was there an association between ESMO-MCBS scoring and PBAC decisions?",{"text":76,"@type":64},"No association was found between ESMO scoring and the PBAC decision.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":79,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":83,"site_id":7},332771,1790149194,{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":87},"success",[88,92,96,100,105,110,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},8,30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":135},{"doc_id":83,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":55,"language":143,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":147,"read_time":148,"preview_page_count":4},962075114765,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care  \n[www.cambridge.org/thc](www.cambridge.org/thc)  \nAssessment  \nCite this article: Vitry A, Inglis J, Caird C (2024) . Evidence of clinical benefit of cancer medicines considered for funding in Australia. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 40(1), e55, 1–7  \n[https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000576](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000576) .  \nReceived: 30 January 2024  \nRevised: 15 July 2024  \nAccepted: 25 August 2024  \nKeywords:  \ncancer medicines; assessment; funding; Australia; strength of evidence; extent of benefit  \nCorresponding author:  \nAgnes Vitry;  \nEmail: [agnes.vitry@unisa.edu.au](agnes.vitry@unisa.edu.au)  \n© The Author(s), 2024 . Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike licence ([http://](http://)[ ](http://)[creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0](creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0)), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.  \nEvidence of clinical benefit of cancer medicines considered for funding in Australia  \nAgnes Vitry1 , Joshua Inglis2,3 and Cathy Caird1  \n1Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia; 2Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia and 3Adelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia  \nAbstract  \nObjectives: To describe the type of evidence and the clinical benefit of cancer medicines assessed for funding in Australia by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and to assess it with the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1 . 1 (ESMO-MCBS) .  \nMethods: All data on applications submitted to PBAC between 2010 and 2020 were extracted from PBAC Public Summary Documents available online. ESMO-MCBS ratings were retrieved from the ESMO-MCBS website.  \nResults: Then, 182 cancer indications for 100 cancer medicines were examined by PBAC, including 124 (68.1 percent) for solid tumors and 58 (31.9 percent) for hematological cancers. A total of 137 (75.3 percent) indications were recommended for PBS funding and 40 (21.9 percent)were rejected. Randomized clinical trials(RCTs)were the main source ofevidence in154 indications (84.6 percent), single-arm studies in 28 (15.4 percent) indications. Statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was reported in 80 (44 percent) of the indications, with a median OS gain of 3.0 months (range 0.9–17.0) for solid tumors and 8.2 months (range 1–49.1) for hematological cancers when mature OS data were available. The ESMO-MCBS score was available for 99 solid tumor indications, of which 51 (51.5 percent) showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS, including 40 (54.1 percent) of PBAC-recommended indications and 9 (42.9 percent) of PBAC-rejected indications. There was no association between the ESMO scoring and PBAC decision.  \nConclusions: Most cancer medicines indications considered by PBAC were supported by RCTs. A minority showed a substantial improvement in OS.  \nBackground  \nDespite important breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer, there are concerns about the quality of evidence and the extent of the clinical benefit provided by new cancer medicines (1) . In the United States, less than a third (27 percent) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals in solid tumor oncology for the period 2017–2021 were supported by evidence of an overall survival (OS) benefit (2) . The use of single-arm stud","cbCaismhHsO7H7Ys","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaismhHsO7H7Ys","pdf",256142,"English","# Abstract\n## Objectives\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusions\n# Background\n## Evidence concerns and OS availability\n## Prior regulator and HTA evaluations\n## PBAC role and evidence requirements","[{\"question\":\"What is the study’s main objective?\",\"answer\":\"To describe the evidence types and clinical benefit of cancer medicines assessed for Australian funding by PBAC, and evaluate those benefits using ESMO-MCBS version 1.1.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the evidence data and ESMO-MCBS ratings obtained?\",\"answer\":\"All PBAC application data from 2010 to 2020 were extracted from PBAC Public Summary Documents, and ESMO-MCBS ratings were retrieved from the ESMO-MCBS website.\"},{\"question\":\"What proportion of indications were recommended for PBS funding, and what evidence type dominated?\",\"answer\":\"Of 182 indications, 75.3% were recommended for PBS funding. Randomized clinical trials were the main evidence source for 84.6% of indications.\"},{\"question\":\"Was there an association between ESMO-MCBS scoring and PBAC decisions?\",\"answer\":\"No association was found between ESMO scoring and the PBAC decision.\"}]","Evidence of Clinical Benefit of Cancer Medicines Considered for Funding in Australia | PDF",1789999445,18]