Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating cancer treatments in hospital-based health technology assessment: The Paraconsistent Value Framework

Abstract

Background In recent years, the potential of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the health field has been discussed widely. However, most MCDA methodologies have given little attention to the aggregation of different stakeholder individual perspectives. Objective To illustrate how a paraconsistent theory-based MCDA reusable framework, designed to aid hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA), could be used to aggregate individual expert perspectives when valuing cancer treatments. Methods An MCDA methodological process was adopted based on paraconsistent theory and following ISPOR recommended steps in conducting an MCDA study. A proof-of-concept exercise focusing on identifying and assessing the global value of first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to foster the development of the MCDA framework. Results On consultation with hospital-based HTA committee members, 11 perspectives were considered in an expert panel: medical oncology, oncologic surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, pharmacist, health economist, epidemiologist, public health expert, health media expert, pharmaceutical industry, and patient advocate. The highest weights were assigned to the criteria “overall survival” (mean 0.22), “burden of disease” (mean 0.21) and “adverse events” (mean 0.20), and the lowest weights were given to “progression-free survival” and “cost of treatment” (mean 0.18 for both). FOLFIRI and mFlox scored the highest global value score of 0.75, followed by mFOLFOX6 with a global value score of 0.71. mIFL was ranked last with a global value score of 0.62. The paraconsistent analysis (para-analysis) of 6 first-line treatments for mCRC indicated that FOLFIRI and mFlox were the appropriate options for reimbursement in the context of this study. Conclusion The Paraconsistent Value Framework is proposed as a step beyond the current MCDA practices, in order to improve means of dealing with individual expert perspectives in hospital-based HTA of cancer treatments.