Agreement about Availability of Alternative Treatments for Innovative Drugs Assessed by the EMA and HTA Organizations.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European national/regional health technology assessment (HTA) organizations consider the availability of existing treatments when evaluating a new drug. Since disagreement about the availability of alternative treatments may impact patient access to new drugs, this study aimed to investigate whether the EMA and HTA organizations agreed on the availability of alternative treatments and whether a lack of alternative treatments was associated with HTA organizations' added benefit assessment outcomes. For 97 innovative drugs authorized in 2019-2021 (excluding vaccines and diagnostic tools), assessments by the EMA and AEMPS (Spain), AIFA (Italy), HAS (France), IQWiG/G-BA (Germany), NICE (England and Wales), and ZIN (the Netherlands) were identified. Until 1 June 2022, 429 HTA drug-indication combinations were identified for these 97 drugs, of which 205 exactly matched the EMA's indication. For those, the overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations on whether alternative treatments were available was 87%. The agreement of HTA organizations with the EMA on whether available treatments were either pharmacological on-label, pharmacological off-label, or non-pharmacological was 87%, 21%, and 57%, respectively. For all 429 HTA drug-indication combinations, absence of alternative treatments as considered by HTA organizations was associated with a higher chance to provide added benefit: risk ratio 1.8 (95%-CI 1.4-2.3). In conclusion, although there was high overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations about whether alternative treatments exist, there were differences in the types of treatment considered. Parallel joint scientific consultations could inform drug developers about relevant alternative treatments to facilitate patient access to innovative drugs.

A Natural Language Processing Approach Towards Harmonized Communication of Uncertainties Identified During the European Medicine Authorization Process.

Within the European Union, the European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) is an important source of information for healthcare professionals and patients that allows them to understand important risks and uncertainties associated with the use of a medicine. However, the EPAR sections describing such important uncertainties can differ substantially in wording, length, and detail, thereby potentially limiting understanding. In this study, we therefore present a natural language processing approach to cluster sentences extracted from the sections on uncertainties in EPARs of centrally authorized medicines, as a steppingstone to harmonization of text describing uncertainties. We used a BERT language model together with dimensionality reduction (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP)) and clustering (Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN)) to identify semantic similarities between sentences. Clusters were labeled according to an overarching topic by reviewing the semantically similar sentences. Each cluster was also characterized according to medicine-related characteristics, such as efficacy or side effects. In total, 1,648 medicines were included in this study. For 573 of these medicines (authorized July 27, 2010 to December 31, 2022), we identified an EPAR that described a complete regulatory dossier and contained sections on uncertainties. Of these, 553 EPARs could be attributed to unique active substance-indication combinations. In these 553 EPARs, we identified 13,105 sentences in sections on uncertainties, leading to 26 clusters of which 2 were labeled as noise. The clusters and associated topics provided in this article can be used by regulators and medicine developers as a steppingstone toward a unified way of communicating uncertainties identified during the EMA process to the broader public.

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances. RESULTS: 131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years). CONCLUSIONS: While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Per PD-L1 Stratum In Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Effectiveness Versus Trial Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness of oncological treatments can differ. This study assessed the real-world survival outcomes of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy per PD-L1 stratum in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and compared them to clinical trial results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with nonsquamous and squamous mNSCLC who received first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in 7 Dutch teaching hospitals between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021 were included. Hazard ratios (HR) with confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated to determine the efficacy-effectiveness gap (EE gap) between real-world and clinical trial, stratified by PD-L1 stratum. RESULTS: The nonsquamous cohort (n = 486) consisted of 269 patients with PD-L1 < 1%, 158 with PD-L1 1% to 49%, and 59 with PD-L1 ≥ 50%. The squamous cohort (n = 117) consisted of 70 patients with PD-L1 < 1% and 47 with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. For OS, an EE gap was observed in nonsquamous patients with PD-L1 < 1% (HR 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.78; median OS 10 vs. 17.2 months) and HRs consistently >1 in all other nonsquamous and squamous PD-L1 strata, although not statistically significant. No EE-gap for PFS was observed in any stratum. CONCLUSION: No significant EE gap was found for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, except in the stratum nonsquamous mNSCLC with <1% PD-L1 tumor expression. In these patients, the survival in real-world was considerably shorter compared to the clinical trial results. Further studies are needed to determine which patient, treatment and or context factors contribute to this disparity.

Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results.

Aim: We investigated the effectiveness of durvalumab post-concurrent CRT (cCRT) and post-sequential CRT (sCRT) versus cCRT and sCRT alone and compared these outcomes with the PACIFIC trial. Methods: Four cohorts of stage III NSCLC patients who received CRT were included: cCRT with and without durvalumab, sCRT with and without durvalumab. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox regression. Results: Durvalumab improved PFS (cCRT: aHR = 0.69, sCRT: aHR = 0.71) and OS (cCRT: aHR = 0.71, sCRT: aHR = 0.32), although not all results were significant. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the trial, while OS did not differ. Conclusion: Durvalumab after CRT improved the survival outcomes. The difference between PFS in our study and the trial may be due to differences in follow-up methods.

We assessed a medicine called durvalumab on patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received chemoradiotherapy in a real-world setting. We compared their outcomes with those from a clinical trial. Patients who received two types of chemoradiotherapy with or without durvalumab were included, and their progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were analyzed. We found that patients treated with durvalumab had better PFS and OS than those treated without durvalumab. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the clinical trial, but OS was similar. The difference in PFS may be due to differences in measuring PFS.

Neonatal pain score after use of paracetamol: Is there a relationship with serum trough concentration at steady state in preterm and term neonates?

OBJECTIVE: An easy to establish and patient-friendly biomarker to guide dosing of paracetamol in neonates is currently not available. The aim of this study was to determine the potential association between the serum trough concentration and area under the curve (AUC) of paracetamol at steady state and differences in pain scores in preterm and term neonates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed, using an academic hospital database to identify neonates treated with intravenous or rectal paracetamol for at least 48 hours. At steady state, serum trough concentrations and the 24-hour AUC were determined. Pain was measured by COMFORTneo scores, before the 1st and 6th dose. Linear regression was performed to assess the association between serum trough concentration and 24-hour AUC and differences in pain scores. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients who received paracetamol due to a COMFORTneo score ≥ 14 (group 1) or who received prophylactic paracetamol because of upcoming surgery (group 2). RESULTS: 21 neonates were included. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) serum trough concentration of paracetamol before the 6th dose was 4.5 mg/L (2.7 - 8.5 mg/L). In subgroup 1, the median (IQR) COMFORTneo scores before the 1st and 6th dose were 17 (16.5 - 20) and 12 (11 - 16.5), respectively. In subgroup 2, the median (IQR) scores were 9 (8 - 10) and 11 (9 - 12), respectively. The serum trough concentration and 24-hour AUC were not associated with reduced pain scores (p = 0.12 and p = 0.67, respectively). CONCLUSION: No association was found between the serum trough concentration and 24-hour AUC of paracetamol at steady state and differences in pain scores in preterm and term neonates. Future research is needed to prospectively determine a patient-friendly biomarker to optimize the treatment with paracetamol.

European Conditional Marketing Authorization in a Rapidly Evolving Treatment Landscape: A Comprehensive Study of Anticancer Medicinal Products in 2006-2020.

Since 2006, the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA) aims to facilitate timely patient access to medicinal products for which there is an unmet medical need by accepting less comprehensive data than normally required. The granting of CMA requires a positive benefit-risk balance, unmet medical needs to be fulfilled, likely submission of comprehensive data postauthorization, and the benefit of immediate availability to outweigh the risks of data noncomprehensiveness. Since its first use, more than half of all CMAs represent (hemato-)oncology indications. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the conditions in which CMA has been applied for anticancer medicinal products and whether they have changed over time. We retrospectively assessed the European public assessment reports of the 30 anticancer medicinal products granted CMA in 2006-2020 (51% of all 59 CMAs). Comparison of 2006-2013 to 2014-2020 highlighted increased proportions of proactively requested CMAs (+40%), medicinal products that addressed unmet medical needs by providing a major therapeutic advantage over authorized treatments (+38%), and orphan designated indications (+32%). In contrast, it showed decreased proportions of medicinal products for which a scientific advisory group was consulted (-55%) and phase III randomized controlled trial data were available (-38%). This suggests that applicants and the European Medicines Agency have learned how to use the CMA as a regulatory tool, among others, through better planning and proactive interaction. However, the increasing number of granted CMAs complicates the establishment of unmet medical need and the benefit-risk balance, especially in crowded indications and when only phase II uncontrolled trials are available.

Towards diagnostic criteria for malignant deep penetrating melanocytic tumors using single nucleotide polymorphism array and next-generation sequencing.

Cutaneous deep penetrating melanocytic neoplasms frequently simulate melanoma and might occasionally progress to metastatic melanoma. Distinguishing deep penetrating nevi (DPN) and deep penetrating melanocytomas (DPM) from malignant deep penetrating tumors (MDPT) is difficult based on histopathology alone, and diagnostic criteria for MDPT are currently lacking. Using a molecular workup, we aimed to provide readily available diagnostic tools for classification of deep penetrating tumors. We used clinical follow-up and Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) array for tumor classification of 20 deep penetrating neoplasms to identify associations with histopathological, immunohistochemistry, and NGS findings. Ten neoplasms were classified as MDPT, four as DPM, and six as DPN. Two MDPT showed metastases. The following parameters were statistically significantly associated with MDPT: severe nuclear atypia (risk ratio [RR] 2.9, p < 0.05), absence of a nevus component (RR 10.0, p = 0.04), positive PRAME expression (RR 9.0, p = 0.02), complete loss of p16 expression (RR 3.5, p = 0.003), TERT-p and APC mutations (RR 11.0, p = 0.01 and RR 2.7, p = 0.002, respectively), and ≥1 additional pathogenic mutation (RR 9.0, p = 0.02). Ki-67 expression ≥ 5% was not significantly associated with MDPTs, although it was <5% in all DPNs. Three MDPT did not show nuclear ß-catenin expression despite having a CTNNB1 (n = 2) or an APC mutation (n = 1). Our findings suggest that complete loss of p16 and positive PRAME expression, a driver mutation in APC, ≥ 1 additional pathogenic mutation, especially in TERT-p, support an MDPT diagnosis in deep penetrating neoplasms. Besides severe nuclear atypia and possibly severe inflammation, we did not identify specific histopathological criteria for malignancy. Non-aberrant nuclear ß-catenin expression might not exclude a deep penetrating signature in MDPT.

The Role of Regulator-Imposed Post-Approval Studies in Health Technology Assessments for Conditionally Approved Drugs.

BACKGROUND: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) aims to resolve uncertainties associated with conditionally approved drugs by imposing post-approval studies. Results from these studies may be relevant for health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This study investigated the role of regulator-imposed post-approval studies within HTA. METHODS: For all conditionally approved drugs up to December 2018, regulator-imposed post-approval studies were identified from EMA's public assessment reports. The availability for and inclusion of study results in relative effectiveness (re)assessments were analyzed for 4 European HTA organizations: NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England/Wales), HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé, France), ZIN (Zorginstituut Nederland, the Netherlands) and the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA, Europe). When study results became available between an HTA organization's initial assessment and reassessment, it was evaluated whether and how they affected the assessment and its outcome. RESULTS: For 36 conditionally approved drugs, 98 post-approval studies were imposed. In total, 81 initial relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and 13 reassessments were available, with numbers of drugs (re)assessed varying greatly between jurisdictions. Study results were available for 16 initial REAs (20%) and included in 14 (88%), and available for 10 reassessments (77%) and included in all (100%). Five reassessments had an outcome different from the initial REA, with 4 (2 positive and 2 negative changes) relating directly to the new study results. Reassessments often cited the inability of post-approval studies to resolve the concerns reported in the initial REA. CONCLUSION: Results from regulator-imposed post-approval studies for conditionally approved drugs were not often used in REAs by HTA organizations, because they were often not yet available at the time of initial assessment and because reassessments were scarce. When available, results from post-approval studies were almost always used within HTA, and they have led to changes in conclusions about drugs' relative effectiveness. Post-approval studies can be relevant within HTA but the current lack of alignment between regulators and HTA organizations limits their potential.

Pre-approval and post-approval availability of evidence and clinical benefit of conditionally approved cancer drugs in Europe: A comparison with standard approved cancer drugs.

AIMS: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown. METHODS: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006-2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P = .31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.4). CONCLUSION: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA.

Comprehensive evaluation of post-approval regulatory actions during the drug lifecycle - a focus on benefits and risks.

Background: Prior studies investigated regulatory actions that reflected a negative impact on drug risks. We aimed to evaluate occurrence of regulatory actions that reflected a negative or positive impact on benefits or risks, as well as relations between them.Research design and methods: We followed EMA-approved innovative drugs from approval (2009-2010) until July 2020 or withdrawal to identify regulatory actions. We assessed these for impact on benefits or risks and relations between actions. Additionally, we scrutinized drug lifecycles for time-variant characteristics that may contribute to specific patterns of regulatory actions.Results: We identified 14 letters and 361 label updates for 40 drugs. Of the label updates, 85 (24%) reflected a positive impact, mostly concerning indications, and 276 (76%) a negative impact, mostly adverse drug reactions. Many updates (54%) occurred simultaneously with other updates, also if these reflected a different impact. Furthermore, levels of patient exposure, innovativeness, needs for regulatory learning and unexpected risks may contribute to patterns of regulatory actions.Conclusions: Almost a quarter of regulatory actions reflected a positive impact on benefits and risks. Also, simultaneous learning about benefits and risks suggests an important role for drug development in risk characterization. These findings may impact regulatory analyses and decision-making.

Genome-wide copy number variations as molecular diagnostic tool for cutaneous intermediate melanocytic lesions: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

Cutaneous intermediate melanocytic neoplasms with ambiguous histopathological features are diagnostically challenging. Ancillary cytogenetic techniques to detect genome-wide copy number variations (CNVs) might provide a valuable tool to allow accurate classification as benign (nevus) or malignant (melanoma). However, the CNV cut-off value to distinguish intermediate lesions from melanoma is not well defined. We performed a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate the use of CNVs to classify intermediate melanocytic lesions. A total of 31 studies and 431 individual lesions were included. The CNV number in intermediate lesions (median 1, interquartile range [IQR] 0-2) was significantly higher (p<0.001) compared to that in benign lesions (median 0, IQR 0-1) and lower (p<0.001) compared to that in malignant lesions (median 6, IQR 4-11). The CNV number displayed excellent ability to differentiate between intermediate and malignant lesions (0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94, p<0.001). Two CNV cut-off points demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity higher than 80%. A cut-off of ≥3 CNVs corresponded to 85% sensitivity and 84% specificity, and a cut-off of ≥4 CNVs corresponded to 81% sensitivity and 91% specificity, respectively. This individual patient data meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of CNVs in cutaneous intermediate melanocytic lesions, based on the largest pooled cohort of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms to date. Our meta-analysis suggests that a cut-off of ≥3 CNVs might represent the optimal trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in clinical practice to differentiate intermediate lesions from melanoma.

Associations between uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency and national decision making on reimbursement by HTA agencies.

We aimed to determine whether uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were associated with negative relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and negative overall reimbursement recommendations by national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Therefore, we identified all HTA reports from Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS; France), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; England/Wales), Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC; Scotland), and Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN; The Netherlands) for a cohort of innovative medicines that the EMA had approved in 2009 to 2010 (excluding vaccines). Uncertainty regarding pivotal trial methodology, clinical outcomes, and their clinical relevance were combined to reflect a low, medium, or high level of uncertainty. We assessed associations by calculating risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and agreement between REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes. We identified 36 medicines for which 121 reimbursement recommendations had been issued by the HTA agencies between September 2009 and July 2018. High versus low uncertainty was associated with an increased risk for negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations: RRs 1.9 (95% CI 0.9-3.9) and 1.6 (95% CI 0.7-3.5), respectively, which was supported by further sensitivity analyses. We identified a lack of agreement between 33 (27%) REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes, which were mostly restricted recommendations that followed on negative REAs in case of low or medium uncertainty. In conclusion, high uncertainty identified by the EMA was associated with negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations. To reduce uncertainty and ultimately facilitate efficient patient access, regulators, HTA agencies, and other stakeholders should discuss how uncertainties should be weighed and addressed early in the drug life cycle of innovative treatments.

Postauthorization Changes to Specific Obligations of Conditionally Authorized Medicines in the European Union: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

When medicines are granted a Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) in Europe, specific obligations are requested to obtain comprehensive data on benefits and risks. We performed a retrospective cohort study to characterize obligations, examine changes to their description and due dates after initial authorization, determine timing of data submission relative to due dates, and identify drug-related, procedure-related, and obligation-related factors associated with change. We identified 69 obligations for 26 medicines conditionally authorized between 2006 and 2016. We found 39 changes to 27 obligations (39% of obligations), of which four substantially changed the obligation. For 55% of obligations, data submission was delayed. Eleven factors were associated with change, including the use of CMA as a rescue option. The results are potentially indicative of a continuous search by regulators to reduce uncertainties. Submission delays impact public health negatively by prolonging exposure of patients to unknown risks, particularly when the level of uncertainty is high.

Weighing of Evidence by Health Technology Assessment Bodies: Retrospective Study of Reimbursement Recommendations for Conditionally Approved Drugs.

This study assessed whether five Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies in Europe were more negative about drugs with a Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) that are approved without controlled studies compared to CMA drugs that are approved based on controlled studies. The HTA recommendations were categorized into positive, restricted, and negative. A total of 92 HTA recommendations were available for 27 drugs. Thirty of 62 (48%) and 17 of 30 (57%) of the recommendations were negative for drugs with and without controlled studies, respectively. Overall, only 12 (13%) recommendations were positive. In all jurisdictions, recommendations between drugs with and drugs without controlled data were comparable, which suggests that the presence of controlled data is not decisive in HTA evaluations. The small proportion of unrestricted positive recommendations highlights difficulties with recommending the drugs in this cohort, which may be caused by scientific uncertainty or other factors. Earlier collaboration between stakeholders is advised in order to improve patient access.

Factors Impacting Treatment Choice in the First-Line Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the factors that affect the choice of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or its oral alternative, capecitabine, as first-line treatment in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Patients treated with 5-FU or capecitabine for CRC between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 in a teaching hospital in the Sydney metropolitan area, Australia were identified using the hospital's database MOSAIQ®. The electronic medical record of each patient was manually reviewed to extract factors potentially affecting treatment choice. Logistic regression was used to assess which patient and/or treatment factors could explain the choice between 5-FU or capecitabine. Where it was available in the medical correspondence, the explicit reason for the choice made was extracted. RESULTS: 170 CRC patients were included; 119 on 5-FU, and 51 on capecitabine. The odds of receiving capecitabine as a first-line treatment were positively associated with giving patients a choice in the decision (OR = 17.51, 95% CI: 5.37-57.08). Qualitative data suggest treatment choices were motivated by convenience (oral administration) and tolerability. Time from diagnosis to treatment commencement (OR = 1.02 per month, 95% CI 1.00-1.04) was also found to be positively associated with the choice of capecitabine. The odds of being treated with capecitabine were lower for patients who lived further from the treating hospital (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.94). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that patient choice, favoring oral capecitabine over i.v. 5-FU, was a key factor influencing first-line treatment for CRC in this cohort. To respect their autonomy, patients should be involved in the clinical decision making process.