IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268584.html

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating cancer treatments in hospital-based health technology assessment: The Paraconsistent Value Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina
  • Maria Del Pilar Estevez-Diz
  • Jair Minoro Abe
  • Patrícia Coelho de Soárez

Abstract

Background: In recent years, the potential of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the health field has been discussed widely. However, most MCDA methodologies have given little attention to the aggregation of different stakeholder individual perspectives. Objective: To illustrate how a paraconsistent theory-based MCDA reusable framework, designed to aid hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could be used to aggregate individual expert perspectives when valuing cancer treatments. Methods: An MCDA methodological process was adopted based on paraconsistent theory and following ISPOR recommended steps in conducting an MCDA study. A proof-of-concept exercise focusing on identifying and assessing the global value of first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to foster the development of the MCDA framework. Results: On consultation with hospital-based HTA committee members, 11 perspectives were considered in an expert panel: medical oncology, oncologic surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, pharmacist, health economist, epidemiologist, public health expert, health media expert, pharmaceutical industry, and patient advocate. The highest weights were assigned to the criteria “overall survival” (mean 0.22), “burden of disease” (mean 0.21) and “adverse events” (mean 0.20), and the lowest weights were given to “progression-free survival” and “cost of treatment” (mean 0.18 for both). FOLFIRI and mFlox scored the highest global value score of 0.75, followed by mFOLFOX6 with a global value score of 0.71. mIFL was ranked last with a global value score of 0.62. The paraconsistent analysis (para-analysis) of 6 first-line treatments for mCRC indicated that FOLFIRI and mFlox were the appropriate options for reimbursement in the context of this study. Conclusion: The Paraconsistent Value Framework is proposed as a step beyond the current MCDA practices, in order to improve means of dealing with individual expert perspectives in hospital-based HTA of cancer treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina & Maria Del Pilar Estevez-Diz & Jair Minoro Abe & Patrícia Coelho de Soárez, 2022. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating cancer treatments in hospital-based health technology assessment: The Paraconsistent Value Framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268584
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268584
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268584&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268584?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Tommi Tervonen & Francesco Pignatti & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "From Individual to Population Preferences: Comparison of Discrete Choice and Dirichlet Models for Treatment Benefit-Risk Tradeoffs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 879-885, October.
    3. Oortwijn, Wija & Mathijssen, Judith & Banta, David, 2010. "The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 174-184, May.
    4. Kevin Marsh & Tereza Lanitis & David Neasham & Panagiotis Orfanos & Jaime Caro, 2014. "Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 345-365, April.
    5. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    6. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    7. Adriana Camargo Carvalho & Frederico Leal & Andre Deeke Sasse, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab and panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, April.
    8. Henk Broekhuizen & Catharina Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Til & J. Hummel & Maarten IJzerman, 2015. "A Review and Classification of Approaches for Dealing with Uncertainty in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Healthcare Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 445-455, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    2. Aris Angelis & Panos Kanavos, 2016. "Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 435-446, May.
    3. Safa Chabouh & Sondes Hammami & Hafedh Fessi & Abdellatif Achour, 2025. "Towards sustainable dialysis modality selection: a multi-expert fuzzy analytical hierarchy process based approach for guided decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 351(1), pages 779-807, August.
    4. Virginia Wiseman & Craig Mitton & Mary M. Doyle‐Waters & Tom Drake & Lesong Conteh & Anthony T. Newall & Obinna Onwujekwe & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 140-161, February.
    5. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    6. Jason C Hsu & Jia-Yu Lin & Peng-Chan Lin & Yang-Cheng Lee, 2019. "Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: An example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    8. Douwe Postmus & Tommi Tervonen & Gert Valkenhoef & Hans Hillege & Erik Buskens, 2014. "A multi-criteria decision analysis perspective on the health economic evaluation of medical interventions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 709-716, September.
    9. Oriana Ciani & Britni Wilcher & Anoukh van Giessen & Rod S. Taylor, 2017. "Linking the Regulatory and Reimbursement Processes for Medical Devices: The Need for Integrated Assessments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 13-29, February.
    10. Irina Odnoletkova & Dirk Ramaekers & Frank Nobels & Geert Goderis & Bert Aertgeerts & Lieven Annemans, 2016. "Delivering Diabetes Education through Nurse-Led Telecoaching. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Vusal Babashov & Sarah Ben Amor & Gilles Reinhardt, 2020. "Framework for Drug Formulary Decision Using Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 438-447, May.
    12. Murrant, Daniel & Radcliffe, Jonathan, 2018. "Assessing energy storage technology options using a multi-criteria decision analysis-based framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 788-802.
    13. Angelis, A. & Linch, M. & Montibeller, G. & Molina-Lopez, T. & Zawada, A. & Orzel, K. & Arickx, F. & Espin, J. & Kanavos, P., 2020. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    14. Necla Öztürk & Hakan Tozan & Özalp Vayvay, 2020. "A New Decision Model Approach for Health Technology Assessment and a Case Study for Dialysis Alternatives in Turkey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-25, May.
    15. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    16. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    17. Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    18. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    19. Lidia García-Pérez & Ignacio Abásolo-Alessón & Miguel Ángel Negrín-Hernández, 2026. "Exploring the Generalizability of Foreign Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Spain Using Data From a Scoping Review of Multinational Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 43-60, January.
    20. Md. Tajuddin Khan & Avinash Kishore & P.K. Joshi, 2016. "Gender Dimensions on Farmers’ Preferences for Direct-Seeded Rice with Drum Seeder in India," Working Papers id:11274, eSocialSciences.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.