Aims: Evaluate existing oncology value frameworks in terms of their methodology, structure, characteristics, and functionality using the example of enfortumab vedotin, an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma.
Methods: A search of PubMed, grey literature, and official websites of relevant international organizations was performed from January 2022 to March 2023.
Results: Six frameworks were identified and analyzed, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology's assessment framework, European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessment framework, and the Drug Assessment Framework. Comparisons across frameworks were challenging, owing to differing approaches, objectives, perspectives, methodology, and criteria. Based on the results of the EV-301 study (NCT03474107), the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale assigned a score of 4 out of 5 to enfortumab vedotin administered after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks enabled assessment of enfortumab vedotin compared with other treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in the positioning of enfortumab vedotin as a preferred regimen after chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
Conclusions: Application of value frameworks in oncology can contribute to informed value-based decision-making. However, comparisons across frameworks should be made with caution and limited to the same lines of treatment. Enfortumab vedotin may contribute to optimizing outcomes in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
Keywords: I; I1; I11; I19; Value assessment; enfortumab vedotin; frameworks; locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer; oncology.