Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group: Development of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments (ANROTAT) Framework

• Published in: Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology Vol. 59; no. 3; pp. 363 - 370
• Main Authors: Duchesne, Gillian M, Grand, Mel, Kron, Tomas, Haworth, Annette, Corry, June, Jackson, Michael, Ng, Michael, Besuijen, Deidre, Carter, Hannah E, Martin, Andrew, Schofield, Deborah, Gebski, Val, Torony, Joan, Kovacev, Olga, Amin, Rowena, Burmeister, Bryan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.06.2015; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Biomedical Research - organization & administration; Biotechnology - organization & administration; framework; health technology assessment; health-economic evaluation; Models, Organizational; Neck; Oncology; Radiation Oncology - organization & administration; radiation oncology techniques; radiation oncology technologies; Radiotherapy, Computer-Assisted - methods; Tasmania; health technology assessment; radiation oncology techniques; health-economic evaluation; framework; radiation oncology technologies
• ISSN: 1754-9477; 1754-9485
• DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12255

Introduction The study aim was to develop a generic framework to derive the parameters to populate health‐economic models for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. Methods A draft framework was developed through horizon scanning for relevant technologies, literature review to identify framework models, and a workshop program with radiation oncology professionals, biostatisticians, health economists and consumers to establish the Framework's structure. It was tested using four clinical protocols, comparing intensity modulated with 3D conformal therapy (post‐prostatectomy, anal canal and nasopharynx) and image‐guided radiation therapy techniques with off‐line review of portal imaging (in the intact prostate). Results The draft generic research framework consisted of five sequential stages, each with a number of components, and was assessed as to its suitability for deriving the evidence needed to populate the decision‐analytic models required for the health‐economic evaluations. A final Framework was established from this experience for use by future researchers to provide evidence of clinical efficacy and cost‐utility for other novel techniques. The four clinical treatment sites tested during the project were considered suitable to use in future evaluations. Conclusions Development of a generic research framework to predict early and long‐term clinical outcomes, combined with health‐economic data, produced a generally applicable method for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. Its application to further health technology assessments in the radiation oncology sector will allow further refinement and support its generalisability.