Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for about 85% of all lung cancer cases. While some cases of NSCLC with actionable genomic alterations in the tumour cells may respond to standard therapies, they often show greater improvement with targeted therapies. The current standard of care in Ontario involves testing for actionable genomic alterations using both DNA and RNA panels via tissue testing alone. However, liquid biopsy testing may complement tissue testing by addressing some of its limitations. We conducted a health technology assessment of liquid biopsy testing using DNA panels for people with NSCLC, which included an evaluation of analytical validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding this technology, and patient preferences and values.
Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the QUADAS-2, QUADAS-C, ROBINS-I, and ROBINS-E tools and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis of 4 potential liquid biopsy testing strategies in which liquid biopsy testing was added to tissue testing in various ways; our model used a 20-year time horizon and was conducted from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding liquid biopsy testing for people with NSCLC in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of liquid biopsy testing, we spoke with people with NSCLC and family members and care partners of people with NSCLC.
Results: We included 61 studies in the clinical evidence review. Liquid biopsy testing demonstrated a modest sensitivity in detecting actionable genomic alterations in the BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, and KRAS genes (GRADE: Moderate to High). However, for the other genes assessed, the sensitivity was either low or uncertain (GRADE: Very Low to High). Liquid biopsy testing also showed an overall high concordance with tissue testing (GRADE: High). Further, liquid biopsy testing was found to improve partial response rates, stable disease rates, and progressive disease rates for people with NSCLC with actionable genomic alterations who were receiving matched targeted therapies (GRADE: Moderate). However, we are uncertain about the clinical validity of liquid biopsy testing in predicting prognosis with standard therapies (GRADE: Very Low). Compared with tissue testing alone, we estimate that all 4 of the potential liquid biopsy testing strategies we evaluated would be more expensive and associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the strategy in which liq
Background: Stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse are common forms of pelvic floor dysfunction. Pelvic floor muscle training is used to improve pelvic floor function, through a program of exercises. We conducted a health technology assessment of pelvic floor muscle training for people with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, or pelvic organ prolapse, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, and the budget impact of publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training, and patient preferences and values.
Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the ROBIS tool, for systematic reviews, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, for randomized controlled trials, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search but did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training in adults with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of pelvic floor muscle training as a treatment, we spoke with people with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse.
Results: We included 6 studies (4 systematic reviews and 2 randomized controlled trials) in the clinical evidence review. In comparison with no treatment, pelvic floor muscle training significantly improved symptom severity and increased patient satisfaction in women with stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse (GRADE: Moderate). For men with stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy, pelvic floor muscle training yielded mixed results for symptom improvement (GRADE: Very low). For adults with fecal incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training did not improve symptoms in comparison with standard care (GRADE: Very low).In the economic literature review, we included 6 cost-utility analyses that had evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training as a treatment for people with pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. We did not identify any economic studies on pelvic floor muscle training for women or men with fecal incontinence or men with pelvic organ prolapse. The analyses included in our review found that, for women with stress urinary incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training was likely cost-effective in comparison with other nonsurgical interventions. For men with urinary incontinence after prostate surgery, pelvic floor muscle training was likely not cost-effective in comparison with standard care. For women with pelvic organ prolapse, the cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in comparison with no acti
Background: Rectal cancer is a disease in which cancer cells form in the rectum, which has the primary function of temporarily storing feces, controlling defecation, and maintaining continence. Surgery is the most common treatment for rectal cancer; surgical approaches include open, laparoscopic, and robotic assisted. We conducted an expedited summary of the clinical evidence for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety.
Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the risk of bias in the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2), and we assessed the risk of bias in the included RCT using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, version 1. We reported the quality of the body of evidence as evaluated in the included systematic reviews according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria if it was evaluated.
Results: We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review (12 systematic reviews and 1 RCT on robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and 1 systematic review on robotic-assisted vs. open rectal cancer surgery). Compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival; similar rates of conversion, blood transfusion, and readmission,· reduced blood loss; shorter length of stay; and improved quality of life. Compared with open rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival, reduced blood loss, and shorter length of stay.
Conclusions: Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery.
Background: Glaucoma is the term for a group of eye disorders that causes progressive damage to the optic nerve, which can lead to visual impairment and, potentially, irreversible blindness. Minimally invasive bleb surgery (MIBS) reduces eye pressure through the implantation of a device that creates a new subconjunctival outflow pathway for eye fluid drainage. MIBS is a less invasive alternative to conventional/incisional glaucoma surgery (e.g., trabeculectomy). We conducted a health technology assessment of MIBS for people with glaucoma, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, the budget impact of publicly funding MIBS, and patient preferences and values.
Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS) for comparative observational studies, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We conducted an economic literature search and we estimated the budget impact of publicly funding MIBS in Ontario. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation due to the limited long-term effectiveness data. We summarized the preferences and values evidence from previous health technology assessments to understand the perspectives and experiences of patients with glaucoma.
Results: We included 41 studies (2 RCTs and 39 comparative observational studies) in the clinical evidence review. MIBS may reduce intraocular pressure and the number of medications used, but we are uncertain if MIBS results in outcomes similar to trabeculectomy (GRADE: Moderate to Very low). Compared with trabeculectomy, MIBS may result in fewer follow-up visits and interventions, and adverse events (GRADE: Moderate to Very Low). MIBS may also reduce intraocular pressure and the number of antiglaucoma medications used, compared with other glaucoma treatments, but the evidence is uncertain (GRADE: Very low). Our economic evidence review identified two directly applicable studies. The results of these studies indicate that the cost-effectiveness of MIBS is highly uncertain, and the cost of glaucoma interventions are likely to vary across provinces. The annual budget impact of publicly funding MIBS in Ontario ranged from $0.11 million in year 1 to $0.67 million in year 5, for a total 5-year budget impact estimate of $1.93 million. Preferences and values evidence suggests that fear of ultimate blindness and difficulty managing medication for glaucoma led patients to explore other treatment options such as MIBS. Glaucoma patients found minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) procedure beneficial, with minimal side effects and recovery time.
Conclusions:
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：