Correction to: Will the reformed Cancer Drugs Fund address the most common types of uncertainty? An analysis of NICE cancer drug appraisals.

.

Cancer as the "perfect storm"? A qualitative study of public attitudes to health conditions.

AIMS: Our aim is to identify important attributes of major diseases that shape how they are perceived by the public. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four focus groups among members of the public were recruited, in March and October 2016, and used semistructured discussion to explore important attributes of cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia, mental illness, and infectious disease. Common themes were identified by using inductive thematic analysis.Five themes were identified: fear, impact on family and friends, hope, detection, and prevention. Fear of cancer includes not only fear of death but also of aggressive treatments. Loss of dignity is feared in dementia, while infectious disease raises fear of uncontrollable "plague"; in contrast, people with mental illness may themselves be seen as a potential threat. The impact of cancer and its treatment on family and friends was described as intense and all-consuming, even for those not involved directly in caring; with dementia and stroke, the family impact is taking on care, including funding, over the long term with little expectation of improvement. Hope is a major theme in cancer and stroke recovery, linked with the need to take action, often expressed in aggressive language of "fighting," but seen as futile in dementia. Detection difficulties for "silent" cancers mean that real treatment opportunities are missed; cardiovascular and infection risk, however, are seen as easy to identify and act on, whereas mental illness and dementia are seen as poorly diagnosed and with limited treatment options. Prevention awareness is high for cardiovascular disease and infection, lower for cancer, and limited for dementia and mental health. CONCLUSION: Although themes overlap across diseases, the specific concerns are different and each condition has a unique profile. Quantifying the relative importance of these themes could allow their incorporation in decision-making, not only when they occur as a named disease but also in any relevant condition.

Will the reformed Cancer Drugs Fund address the most common types of uncertainty? An analysis of NICE cancer drug appraisals.

BACKGROUND: One of the functions of the reformed Cancer Drugs Fund in England is as a managed access fund, providing conditional funding for cancer drugs where there is uncertainty in the economic case, and where that uncertainty can be addressed by data collection during two years' use in the NHS. Our study characterises likely sources of such uncertainty, through a review of recent NICE Technology Appraisals. METHODS: Discussions of uncertainty in NICE Appraisal Committees were extracted from published Single Technology Appraisals of cancer drugs, 2014-2016, and categorised inductively. The location of the comments within the structured Appraisal document was used as a proxy for the degree of concern shown by the Committee. RESULTS: Twenty-nine appraisals were analysed, of which 23 (79%) were recommended for funding. Six main sources of uncertainty were identified. Immaturity of survival data, and issues relating to comparators, were common sources of uncertainty regardless of degree of concern. Uncertainties relating to quality of life, and the patient population in the trial, were discussed frequently but rarely occurred in the more uncertain appraisals. Concerns with trial design, and cost uncertainty, were less common, but a high proportion contributed to the most uncertain appraisals. Funding decisions were not driven by uncertainty in the evidence base, but by the expected cost per QALY relative to acceptance thresholds, and the resultant level of uncertainty in the decision. CONCLUSIONS: The reformed CDF is an improvement on its predecessor. However the main types of uncertainty seen in recent cancer appraisals will not readily be resolved solely by 2 years' RWD collection in the reformed CDF; where there are no ongoing trials to provide longer-term data, randomised trials rather than RWD may be needed to fully resolve questions of relative efficacy. Other types of uncertainty, and concerns with generalisability, may be more amenable to the RWD approach, and it is these that we expect to be the focus of data collection arrangements in the reformed CDF.

Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes.

BACKGROUND: The Scottish Medicines Consortium evaluates new drugs for use in the National Health Service in Scotland. Reforms in 2014 to their evaluation process aimed to increase patient access to new drugs for end-of-life or rare conditions; the changes include additional steps in the process to gain further information from patients and clinicians, and for revised commercial agreements. This study examines the extent of any impact of the reforms on funding decisions. METHOD: Data on the Scottish Medicines Consortium's funding decisions during 24 months post-reform were extracted from published Advice, for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Comparison data were extracted for the 24 months pre-reform. Data on decisions for England by the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence for the same drugs were extracted from published Technology Appraisals. RESULTS: The new process was used by 90% (53/59) of cancer submissions. It is triggered if the initial advice is not to recommend, and this risk-of-rejection level is higher than in the pre-period. Thirty-eight cancer drugs obtained some level of funding through the new process, but there was no significant difference in the distribution of decision types compared to the pre-reform period. Thematic analysis of patient and clinician input showed no clear relationship between issues raised and funding decision. Differences between SMC's and NICE's definitions of End-of-Life did not fully explain differences in funding decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium's reforms have allowed funding of up to 38 cancer drugs that might previously have been rejected. However, the contribution of specific elements of the reforms to the final decision is unclear. The process could be improved by increased transparency in how the non-quantitative inputs influence decisions. Some disparities in funding decisions between England and Scotland are likely to remain despite recent process convergence.

Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Policies such as the Cancer Drugs Fund in England assumed a societal preference to fund cancer care relative to other conditions, even if that resulted in lower health gain for the population overall. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence for such a preference among the UK public. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed and Econlit electronic databases were searched for studies relating to preferences for prioritising cancer treatment, as well as studies relating to preferences for the characteristics of cancer (severity of disease, end-of-life). The searches were run in November 2015 and updated in March 2017. Empirical preference studies, studies of public views, and studies in English were included. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies relating to cancer preferences. Two directly addressed health trade-offs in the UK-one showed a preference for health gain in cancer, while the other found no such preference but provided results consistent with population health maximisation. Other studies mostly showed support for cancer but did not require a direct health trade-off. Severity and end-of-life searches identified 12 and 6 papers, respectively, which were additional to existing reviews. There is consistent evidence that people give priority to severe illness, while results for end-of-life are mixed. CONCLUSION: We did not find consistent support for a preference for health gains to cancer patients in the context of health maximisation. The evidence base is small and the results are highly sensitive to study design. There remains a contradiction between these findings and the popular view of cancer, and further work is required to determine the features of cancer which contribute to that view.