2023年世界卫生组织癌症基本药物目录及其与资源分层指南的一致性分析

Brooke E Wilson, Kristin Wright, Manju Sengar, Richard Sullivan, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Michael B Barton, Bishal Gyawali, Elisabeth De Vries, Lorenzo Moja, C S Pramesh, Christopher M Booth
{"title":"2023年世界卫生组织癌症基本药物目录及其与资源分层指南的一致性分析","authors":"Brooke E Wilson, Kristin Wright, Manju Sengar, Richard Sullivan, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Michael B Barton, Bishal Gyawali, Elisabeth De Vries, Lorenzo Moja, C S Pramesh, Christopher M Booth","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The Essential Medicines List (EML) and Resource Stratified Guidelines (RSG) both prioritize high-value medicines. We compare the 2023 EML cancer medicines list to global cancer statistics, examine the proportion of EML therapies recommended by RSGs, and identify gaps that merit evaluation by the EML Committee. Methods We compared the 2023 EML medicines for adult cancers with cancer incidence and mortality data from GLOBOCAN2022. We cross-referenced the EML with two RSGs (National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Grid (NCG) of India), and evaluated preferred treatments in RSG that were not recommended by the EML. Findings The 2023 EML included 64 cancer medicines for 219 tumor-specific indications. The greatest number of medicines are listed for leukaemia (n = 37, 17%) and lymphoma (n = 33, 15%). While some common cancers (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma) have no EML listed medicines due to the low clinical benefit, we identified some cancers (eg, esophageal and gastric) with effective therapies that should be evaluated by the EML for inclusion. Cancers with no listed medicines comprise 34% of cancer deaths globally. Among EML indications with a NCCN RSG, 42% (35/84) and 73% (62/84) were recommended by the NCCN Basic and Core Guidelines, respectively. Among EML indications with a NCG RSG, 163/196 (83%) and 175/196 (89%) were recommended by the NCG Essential and Optimal guidelines, respectively. Interpretation We identified some effective medicines which should be evaluated for inclusion in the EML. Prioritisation of cancer medicines was similar between the EML and NCG India, but discordant between with NCCN RSG.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of 2023 World Health Organization cancer Essential Medicines List and concordance with resource stratified guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Brooke E Wilson, Kristin Wright, Manju Sengar, Richard Sullivan, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Michael B Barton, Bishal Gyawali, Elisabeth De Vries, Lorenzo Moja, C S Pramesh, Christopher M Booth\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnci/djaf100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background The Essential Medicines List (EML) and Resource Stratified Guidelines (RSG) both prioritize high-value medicines. We compare the 2023 EML cancer medicines list to global cancer statistics, examine the proportion of EML therapies recommended by RSGs, and identify gaps that merit evaluation by the EML Committee. Methods We compared the 2023 EML medicines for adult cancers with cancer incidence and mortality data from GLOBOCAN2022. We cross-referenced the EML with two RSGs (National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Grid (NCG) of India), and evaluated preferred treatments in RSG that were not recommended by the EML. Findings The 2023 EML included 64 cancer medicines for 219 tumor-specific indications. The greatest number of medicines are listed for leukaemia (n = 37, 17%) and lymphoma (n = 33, 15%). While some common cancers (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma) have no EML listed medicines due to the low clinical benefit, we identified some cancers (eg, esophageal and gastric) with effective therapies that should be evaluated by the EML for inclusion. Cancers with no listed medicines comprise 34% of cancer deaths globally. Among EML indications with a NCCN RSG, 42% (35/84) and 73% (62/84) were recommended by the NCCN Basic and Core Guidelines, respectively. Among EML indications with a NCG RSG, 163/196 (83%) and 175/196 (89%) were recommended by the NCG Essential and Optimal guidelines, respectively. Interpretation We identified some effective medicines which should be evaluated for inclusion in the EML. Prioritisation of cancer medicines was similar between the EML and NCG India, but discordant between with NCCN RSG.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf100\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基本药物目录(EML)和资源分层指南(RSG)都优先考虑高价值药物。我们将2023年EML癌症药物清单与全球癌症统计数据进行比较,检查rsg推荐的EML疗法的比例,并确定值得EML委员会评估的差距。方法将2023年EML成人癌症药物与GLOBOCAN2022的癌症发病率和死亡率数据进行比较。我们将EML与两个RSG(印度国家综合癌症网络(NCCN)和国家癌症网格(NCG))交叉引用,并评估了EML不推荐的RSG首选治疗方法。2023年EML包括64种针对219种肿瘤特异性适应症的癌症药物。列出的最多的药物用于白血病(n = 37, 17%)和淋巴瘤(n = 33, 15%)。虽然一些常见癌症(如肝细胞癌)由于临床获益低而没有EML列出的药物,但我们确定了一些具有有效治疗方法的癌症(如食管癌和胃癌),应由EML评估以纳入。没有上市药物的癌症占全球癌症死亡人数的34%。在NCCN RSG的EML适应症中,分别有42%(35/84)和73%(62/84)被NCCN基本指南和核心指南推荐。在NCG RSG的EML适应症中,NCG Essential和Optimal指南分别推荐163/196(83%)和175/196(89%)。我们确定了一些有效的药物,这些药物应该被评估以纳入EML。EML和NCG印度之间的癌症药物优先级相似,但与NCCN RSG之间不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysis of 2023 World Health Organization cancer Essential Medicines List and concordance with resource stratified guidelines
Background The Essential Medicines List (EML) and Resource Stratified Guidelines (RSG) both prioritize high-value medicines. We compare the 2023 EML cancer medicines list to global cancer statistics, examine the proportion of EML therapies recommended by RSGs, and identify gaps that merit evaluation by the EML Committee. Methods We compared the 2023 EML medicines for adult cancers with cancer incidence and mortality data from GLOBOCAN2022. We cross-referenced the EML with two RSGs (National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Grid (NCG) of India), and evaluated preferred treatments in RSG that were not recommended by the EML. Findings The 2023 EML included 64 cancer medicines for 219 tumor-specific indications. The greatest number of medicines are listed for leukaemia (n = 37, 17%) and lymphoma (n = 33, 15%). While some common cancers (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma) have no EML listed medicines due to the low clinical benefit, we identified some cancers (eg, esophageal and gastric) with effective therapies that should be evaluated by the EML for inclusion. Cancers with no listed medicines comprise 34% of cancer deaths globally. Among EML indications with a NCCN RSG, 42% (35/84) and 73% (62/84) were recommended by the NCCN Basic and Core Guidelines, respectively. Among EML indications with a NCG RSG, 163/196 (83%) and 175/196 (89%) were recommended by the NCG Essential and Optimal guidelines, respectively. Interpretation We identified some effective medicines which should be evaluated for inclusion in the EML. Prioritisation of cancer medicines was similar between the EML and NCG India, but discordant between with NCCN RSG.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信