This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pater, J. L. Articles by Cowan, D. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pater, J. L. Articles by Cowan, D. H.

Funding New Cancer Drugs in Ontario: Closing the Loop in the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle

From Queen’s University, Kingston; McMaster University, Hamilton; Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto; and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Address reprint requests to Joseph L. Pater, MSc, MD, Queen’s University, 82-84 Barrie St, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6; email: jpater{at}ctg.queensu.ca

PURPOSE: The previously described practice guidelines development cycle follows an iterative model in which recommendations are reached by a process that incorporates practitioners at all phases. A key feature is the separation of the evidence-based systematic review and the generation of recommendations from policy decisions surrounding implementation. This article describes how this implementation phase has evolved in Ontario and how implementation has affected the guidelines process.

METHODS: The development of the New Drug Funding Program in Ontario and the appointment of a policy advisory committee (PAC) to make funding recommendations were reviewed. The decision-making framework of the PAC is described in this article.

RESULTS: The PAC has had to address a number of issues in making funding recommendations. These issues have included dealing with evidence arising solely from phase II versus phase III trials, using economic information, and involving community representatives in its deliberations. Its activities have had a substantial impact on the practice guidelines initiative.

CONCLUSION: It is possible to integrate an evidence-based, practitioner-driven approach to clinical guideline development with a funding program that takes policy considerations into account. However, even though these two roles are conceptually separate, the needs of the funding program have inevitably had an impact on the guidelines process.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. De Palma, A. Liberati, G. Ciccone, E. Bandieri, M. Belfiglio, M. Ceccarelli, M. Leoni, G. Longo, N. Magrini, M. Marangolo, et al. Developing Clinical Recommendations for Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Adjuvant Treatments Using the GRADE System: A Study From the Programma Ricerca e Innovazione Emilia Romagna Oncology Research Group J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2008; 26(7): 1033 - 1039. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. P. Browman, B. Manns, N. Hagen, C. R. Chambers, A. Simon, and S. Sinclair 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs J. Oncol. Pract, January 1, 2008; 4(1): 2 - 7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. P. Browman, J. Makarski, P. Robinson, and M. Brouwers Practitioners As Experts: The Influence of Practicing Oncologists "in-the-Field" on Evidence-Based Guideline Development J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2005; 23(1): 113 - 119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]