ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.

PURPOSE To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies. METHODS The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance. RESULTS The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity. CONCLUSION The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

The ESMO-DCs had a high level of PC infrastructure and provided access to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The survey supports that the 13 criteria required for ESMO designation set a robust framework for integration, stimulated investment of resources into some palliative care programmes prior to accreditation, and raised the interest about palliative care among clinicians, trainees and patients.

BackgroundA recent international consensus panel identified 13 major indicators to assess the level of integration between oncology and palliative care. We examined these indicators among European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Designated Centres (ESMO-DCs) of Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care (PC) and determined the centre characteristics associated with greater integration.MethodsThis is a preplanned secondary analysis of a recent survey to characterise the structure, processes and outcomes of the palliative care programmes at ESMO-DCs. We assessed the level of integration using 13 major indicators. We calculated two Palliative Care and Oncology Integration Indexes consisting of all 13 indicators (PCOI-13, range 0–13) and 9 of the 13 indicators (PCOI-9, range 0–9), with a higher index indicating greater integration.ResultsThe survey response rate was 152/184 (83%). Among the 13 major indicators, interdisciplinary team was most likely to be achieved (95%), while early referral to palliative care (median time from referral to death >6 months before death) was only present in 24 (20%) of ESMO-DCs. The median PCOI-13 was 7.8 (IQR 6.4–9.6) and the median PCOI-9 was 6 (IQR 5–7). The presence of dually trained palliative oncologists was associated with higher PCOI-13 (median 8.4 vs 7.0; p=0.01) and PCOI-9 (median 6 vs 5; p=0.03). Non-tertiary hospitals generally had higher PCOI-13 (median 8.6 vs 7.2; p=0.01) and ESMO-DCs outside of Europe had higher PCOI-9 (median 7 vs 6; p=0.03).ConclusionsAssessment of the level of integration at ESMO-DCs with PCOIs highlighted strengths, areas for further development and how double-boarded palliative oncologists may promote integration.

ObjectiveValue frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology—Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).MethodsHere we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies.ResultsIn general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described.ConclusionsBased on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials.

Background: Essential anticancer medicines are an indispensable component of multidisciplinary treatment of paediatric malignancies. A European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) study reported inequalities in the availability of anticancer medicines for adult solid tumours and provided a model for the present survey. The aim of this survey was to assess the accessibility of essential medicines used in paediatric cancer patients aged 0 to 18 years across Europe from 2016 to 2018. Methods: A list of medicines was drawn with input from the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe) Clinical Research Council referring to the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (WHO EMLc) 2017. A survey was sent to nominated national clinician and pharmacist rapporteurs and parent associations in up to 37 countries; answers were obtained from 34 countries. Results: The full survey list contained 68 medicines, including 24 on the WHO EMLc 2017. Health professionals reported that 35% of all medicines were prescribed off-label in at least one country and that 44% were always available in >90% of countries. Only 63% of the EMLc 2017 medicines were reported as always available. The main determinant of unavailability was shortages, reported for 72% of medicines in at least one country. Out-of-pocket costs were reported in eight countries. Twenty-seven percent of orally administered medicines were never available in childfriendly formulations. Parents detailed individual efforts and challenges of facilitating ingestion of oral medicines as prescribed. Inequalities in access to pain control during procedures were reported by parents across Europe. Conclusions: Children and adolescents with cancer in Europe experience lack of access to essential medicines. Urgent actions are needed to address shortages, financial accessibility, availability of safe age-appropriate oral formulations, and pain management across Europe.

The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a standardised, generic, validated tool to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anticancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS is intended to both assist oncologists in explaining the likely benefits of a particular treatment to their patients as well as to aid public health decision makers' prioritise therapies for reimbursement. From its inception the ESMO-MCBS Working Group has invited questions and critiques to promote understanding and to address misunderstandings regarding the nuanced use of the scale, and to identify shortcomings in the scale to be addressed in future planned revisions and updates. The ESMO-MCBS V.1.0 has attracted many questions regarding its development, structure and potential applications. These questions, together with responses from the ESMO-MCBS Working Group, have been edited and collated, and are herein presented as a supplementary resource.

BackgroundThe European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. Grading is guided by a dual rule comparing the relative benefit (RB) and the absolute benefit (AB) achieved by the therapy to prespecified threshold values. The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 dual rule evaluates the RB of an experimental treatment based on the lower limit of the 95%CI (LL95%CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) along with an AB threshold. This dual rule addresses two goals: inclusiveness: not unfairly penalising experimental treatments from trials designed with adequate power targeting clinically meaningful relative benefit; and discernment: penalising trials designed to detect a small inconsequential benefit.MethodsBased on 50 000 simulations of plausible trial scenarios, the sensitivity and specificity of the LL95%CI rule and the ESMO-MCBS dual rule, the robustness of their characteristics for reasonable power and range of targeted and true HRs, are examined. The per cent acceptance of maximal preliminary grade is compared with other dual rules based on point estimate (PE) thresholds for RB.ResultsFor particularly small or particularly large studies, the observed benefit needs to be relatively big for the ESMO-MCBS dual rule to be satisfied and the maximal grade awarded. Compared with approaches that evaluate RB using the PE thresholds, simulations demonstrate that the MCBS approach better exhibits the desired behaviour achieving the goals of both inclusiveness and discernment.ConclusionsRB assessment using the LL95%CI for HR rather than a PE threshold has two advantages: it diminishes the probability of excluding big benefit positive studies from achieving due credit and, when combined with the AB assessment, it increases the probability of downgrading a trial with a statistically significant but clinically insignificant observed benefit.