Comparing assessment frameworks for cancer drugs between Canada and Europe: What can we learn from the differences?

The increasing burden of costs associated with novel cancer therapies is becoming untenable. In Europe and Canada, assessment frameworks have been developed to attribute value to novel therapies and ultimately facilitate access to cancer drug funding. A review of the two frameworks has not previously been undertaken. This review provides insight into the relative strengths and benefits of each approach, the various perspectives of value (patient, physician and societal) and how the frameworks relate to their unique context and core principles. Both frameworks assess the clinical benefit of a new cancer therapy. The European framework considers effectiveness, quality of life, and toxicity in its determination of benefit and has the advantage of providing a simple summary score to facilitate priority setting. The Canadian framework considers other elements including cost-effectiveness, patient preferences and adoption feasibility; its deliberative framework precludes a simple summative presentation of value but can address complex and nuanced drug funding considerations with flexibility. Both frameworks have evolved to meet the needs unique to their jurisdictions and offer potentially complementary tools in the assessment of new cancer drugs. Lessons learnt in both systems can be applied to future iterations of the frameworks, which remain works in progress.

Courage, collaboration, complexity and chemotherapy safety: the view from the sharp end.

The Canadian oncology community was devastated by the news in August 2006 that a patient had died from an overdose of fluorouracil. Where we once thought our checks and balances ensured patient safety, we now knew they were not enough. Practice immediately began to change around the country. However, the incident report highlighted that there was much we still didn't know about safety issues in intravenous ambulatory chemotherapy safety in Canada. In response, an interdisciplinary, pan-Canadian team launched an 18-month exploratory study, resulting in a report identifying several safety issues and associated recommendations. This paper summarizes the key insights we have gathered for Canadian oncology nurses in being part of this study: that we need courage to come forward and disclose safety concerns; we should collaborate to come up with safety improvements that work for everyone; and we should strive to simplify our work at the sharp end by reducing complexity upstream and throughout the system.