Ítem
Acceso Abierto

Análisis de decisión por múltiples criterios (MCDA); evaluación riesgo, beneficio y costo de cetuximab y bevacizumab en cáncer colorrectal metastásico

Mostrar el registro sencillo de la publicación
dc.contributorMuadi Holzheu, Javier
dc.contributor.advisorMendoza, Jose Alejandro
dc.creatorPisciotti Chajin, Ivan Gregorio
dc.creator.degreeMagíster en Administración en Saludspa
dc.creator.degreetypePart timespa
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-16T13:29:58Z
dc.date.available2021-06-16T13:29:58Z
dc.date.created2020-12-16
dc.descriptionEl cáncer colorrectal es una enfermedad común, 50-60% de los casos se presentan en estadios avanzados. Se ha observado una disminución en la mortalidad gracias al advenimiento de nuevas opciones de tratamiento entre las que encontramos las terapias anti EGFR como son el cetuximab y el panitumumab y anti angiogénicos como es el caso del bevacizumab; los cuales combinados con quimioterapia han mejorado los desenlaces de eficacia en esta población con perfiles de seguridad y costo característico de cada uno. Se realiza una evaluación Riesgo-Beneficio-Costo utilizando la metodología de análisis de decisión por criterios múltiples, desde una perspectiva asistencial/clínica de Cetuximab y Bevacizumab en los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal metastásico con reciente diagnóstico. Se busca comparar desde una visión clínica holística, agrupada y teniendo en cuenta la perspectiva del prescriptor, para establecer cuál de las dos opciones presenta el mejor balance.spa
dc.description.abstractColorectal cancer is a common disease, 50-60% of cases present in advanced stages. A decrease in mortality has been observed thanks to the advent of new treatment options, among which we find anti-EGFR therapies such as cetuximab and panitumumab and anti-angiogenic therapies such as bevacizumab, which, combined with chemotherapy, have improved the efficacy outcomes in this population with safety and cost profiles characteristic of each one. A Risk-Benefit-Cost assessment is performed using the multiple criteria decision analysis methodology, from a care / clinical perspective of Cetuximab and Bevacizumab in patients with recently diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer. It seeks to compare from a holistic clinical perspective, grouped and considering the prescriber's perspective, to establish which of the two options presents the best balance. This work provides help in the decision-making process when there are several options for choice using the MCDA methodology in risk-benefit evaluations.spa
dc.format.extent58 pp.spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.48713/10336_31618
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/31618
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosariospa
dc.publisher.departmentEscuela de Administraciónspa
dc.publisher.programMaestría en Administración en Saludspa
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.rights.licenciaEL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma. PARGRAFO: En caso de presentarse cualquier reclamación o acción por parte de un tercero en cuanto a los derechos de autor sobre la obra en cuestión, EL AUTOR, asumirá toda la responsabilidad, y saldrá en defensa de los derechos aquí autorizados; para todos los efectos la universidad actúa como un tercero de buena fe. EL AUTOR, autoriza a LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO, para que en los términos establecidos en la Ley 23 de 1982, Ley 44 de 1993, Decisión andina 351 de 1993, Decreto 460 de 1995 y demás normas generales sobre la materia, utilice y use la obra objeto de la presente autorización. -------------------------------------- POLITICA DE TRATAMIENTO DE DATOS PERSONALES. Declaro que autorizo previa y de forma informada el tratamiento de mis datos personales por parte de LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO para fines académicos y en aplicación de convenios con terceros o servicios conexos con actividades propias de la academia, con estricto cumplimiento de los principios de ley. Para el correcto ejercicio de mi derecho de habeas data cuento con la cuenta de correo habeasdata@urosario.edu.co, donde previa identificación podré solicitar la consulta, corrección y supresión de mis datos.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAdunlin, G., Diaby, V., & Xiao, H. (2015). Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expectations, 18(6), 1894–1905. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12287spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBaltussen R. (2006). Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Effetivennes and Resources Allocation, 1–9.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBelton, V., & Pictet, J. (1997). A framework for group decision using a mcda model: Sharing, aggregating, or comparing individual information? Journal of Decision Systems, 6(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.1997.10511726spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBobo Zheng, Xin Wang, MingtianWei, QuanWang, Jiang Li, Liang Bi, X. D. and Z. W. (2019). First-line cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer, 19, 280.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBruno Rosa, J. P. de J. (s/f). Effectiveness and safety of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis. ecancer, 9, 582.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCastro, H. E., Moreno-Mattar, O., & Rivillas, J. C. (2018). HTA and MCDA solely or combined? The case of priority-setting in Colombia. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation: C/E, 16(Suppl 1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0127-6spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCastro Jaramillo, H. E., Goetghebeur, M., & Moreno-Mattar, O. (2016). Testing Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for more Transparent Resource-Allocation Decision Making in Colombia. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 32(4), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462316000350spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCatalize Ltd. (2010). Hiview3 Starter Guide. June 1–4. (2010). Catalize Ltda. http://www.catalyzeconsulting.com/software/hiview3/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCoplan, P. M., Noel, R. A., Levitan, B. S., Ferguson, J., & Mussen, F. (2011). Development of a framework for enhancing the transparency, reproducibility, and communication of the benefit-risk balance of medicines. 89(2), 312–315.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDaniels N. (2008). Accountability for reasonableness: An update. British Medical Journal, 1850.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDiaby, V., Campbell, K., & Goeree, R. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: A bibliometric analysis. Operations Research for Health Care, 2(1–2), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2013.03.001spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDiaby V, L. J. (2011). An application of a proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: The case of Cote d’Ivoire. Appl Health Econ Health Policy., 9(6), 389–402.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDolan JG, B. DR. (1994). Isoniazid prophylaxis: The importance of individual values. Med Decis Making., 14(1), 1–8.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDynamed Plus. (2018). Colorectal cancer: Overview and Recommendations (p. 97). DynaMed Plus.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationE. Van Cutsem1, A. Cervantes2, B. Nordlinger3 & D. Arnold4, on behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group*. (s/f). Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. 25 (Supplement 3): iii1–iii9, 2014. https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu260spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationEuropean Medicines Agency. (2020). Research and development. Human Regulatory. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-developmentspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFilip Mussen, Sam Salek, Stuart Walker. (2007). A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines—Part 1: The development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. jul 16, 2007, Supl;16 Suppl 1: S2-S15. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1435.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGales C.E, M. JP. S. (1990). Searching for consensus through multi-criteria decision analysis. Assessment of screening strategies for hemoglobinopathies in southeastern FranceL. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 6(3), 430–449.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGlobal Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice, C., Akinyemiju, T. F., Al Lami, F. H., Alam, T., Alizadeh-Navaei, R., Allen, C., Alsharif, U., Alvis-Guzman, N., Amini, E., Anderson, B. O., Aremu, O., Artaman, A., Asgedom, S. W., Assadi, R., Atey, T. M., Avila-Burgos, L., Awasthi, A., Ba Saleem, H. O., … Naghavi, M. (2018). Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived with Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncology, 4(11), 1553–1568. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2706spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGoetghebeur, M. M., Wagner, M., Khoury, H., Levitt, R. J., Erickson, L. J., & Rindress, D. (2012). Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Applying the evidem framework to medicines appraisal. Medical Decision Making, 32(2), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11416870spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGoldstein, D. A., Chen, Q., Ayer, T., Chan, K. K. W., Virik, K., Hammerman, A., Brenner, B., Flowers, C. R., & Hall, P. S. (2017). Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The Oncologist, 22(6), 694–699. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0455spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHsu, J. C. (2019). Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: An example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment. PLOS ONE.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHughes, D., St.mt, I., Chan, E., Downey, G., Hallgreen, C. E., Hockley, K. S., Juhaeri, J., Lieftucht, A., Metcalfe, M. A., Noel, R. A., Phillips, L., Ashby, D., & Micaleff, A. (2013a). IMI-PROTECT Benefit-Risk Group RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT. Recommendations for the methodology and visualization techniques to be used in the assessment of benefit and risk of medicines. Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium, 179.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHughes, D., St.mt, I., Chan, E., Downey, G., Hallgreen, C. E., Hockley, K. S., Juhaeri, J., Lieftucht, A., Metcalfe, M. A., Noel, R. A., Phillips, L., Ashby, D., & Micaleff, A. (2013b). IMI-PROTECT Benefit-Risk Group RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT. Recommendations for the methodology and visualisation techniques to be used in the assessment of benefit and risk of medicines. Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium, 179.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationInstituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS). (2020). Protocolos. http://www.iets.org.cospa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationInvima. (2019). Invima. https://www.invima.gov.cospa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationInternational Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN. (2018). International Agency for Research on Cancer. (http://gco.iarc.fr)spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMarques, R. P. (2019). Patient‑reported outcomes and health‑related quality of life for cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 145, 1719–1728.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMarsh, K. D., Sculpher, M., Caro, J. J., & Tervonen, T. (2018). The Use of MCDA in HTA: Great Potential, but More Effort Needed. Value in Health, 21(4), 394–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMarsh, K., Lanitis, T., Neasham, D., Orfanos, P., & Caro, J. (2014). Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: A review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics, 32(4), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0135-0spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMcKenna, C., Soares, M., Claxton, K., Bojke, L., Griffin, S., Palmer, S., & Spackman, E. (2015). Unifying Research and Reimbursement Decisions: Case Studies Demonstrating the Sequence of Assessment and Judgments Required. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 18(6), 865–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.003spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMendoza-Sanchez, J., Silva, F., Rangel, Lady, Jaramillo, L., Mendoza, L., Garzon, J., & Quiroga, A. (2018). Benefit, risk and cost of new oral anticoagulants and warfarin in atrial fibrillation; A multicriteria decision analysis. PLoS ONE, 13(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196361spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMolinari E, De Quatrebarbes J, Andre T, E. (2005). Cetuximab-induced acne. Dermatology, 211, 330–333.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Wang N, Callreus T, Genov G, Hirsch I, et al. Bs. (2014). Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: Drug, a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug, 23(7), 667-78.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNCCN, N. C. P. G. in O. for C. C. (2019). NCCN Clinical Practive Guidelines in Oncology for Colon Cancer. NCCN Clinical Practive Guidelines in Oncology for Colon Cancer (Vol. 90). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6165-1_18spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNixon, R., Dierig, C., Mt-Isa, S., Stöckert, I., Tong, T., Kuhls, S., Hodgson, G., Pears, J., Waddingham, E., Hockley, K., & Thomson. (2016). A case study using the PrOACT-URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment. 58(1), 8–27.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationOMS | Cáncer. (s/f). WHO; World Health Organization. Recuperado el 16 de septiembre de 2020, de http://www.who.int/topics/cancer/es/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRegulatory Education for Industry: Drug Registration and Listing Workshop - 10/08/2020 - 10/08/2020. (2020, septiembre 10). FDA. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/regulatory-education-industry-drug-registration-and-listing-workshop-10082020-10082020spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRodrigo Yañez Gallardo. (S/F). La Técnica Delphi Y La Investigación En Los Servicios De Salud*. 2008, XIV (1), 9–15.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRovira Forns, J. (2015). [Drug prices: How they are established and existing price control systems]. Salud Colectiva, 11(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1851-82652015000100004spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationS, Stintzing, H. V. (2014). FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationScartozzi M, Galizia E, Chiorrini S, E. (2009). Arterial hypertension correlates with clinical outcome in colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line bevacizumab. Ann Oncol, 20, 227–230.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSharma S. (s/f). How to calculate sample size for observational and experimental nursing research studies? 2019, 10(0), 1. https://doi.org/10.5455/njppp.2020.10.093071710201spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSiegel RL. (2019). Cancer Statitcs. CA: A Cancer Journal for clinicians, 69(1), 7–34.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationThokala, P., Devlin, N., Marsh, K., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kalo, Z., Longrenn, T., Mussen, F., Peacock, S., Watkins, J., & Ijzerman, M. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 19(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationU.S Food and Drugs Administration. (2020). Drugs. Drugs. https://www.fda.gov/drugsspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVenook, A. (2017a). Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 317(23), 2392-2401.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVenook, A. (2017b). Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 317(23), 2392-2401.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVolker H et al. (2016). A study-level meta-analysis of efficacy data from head-to-head first-line trials of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors versus bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVolker Heinemann, S. S. (2015). Early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response colorectal cancer (mCRC). European Journal of Cancer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.06.116spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWenstop F, M. P. (2001). Value focused rationality in AIDS policy. Health Policy, 57(1), 57–72.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYang, J. C., Haworth, L., Sherry, R. M., Hwu, P., Schwartzentruber, D. J., Topalian, S. L., Steinberg, S. M., Chen, H. X., & Rosenberg, S. A. (2003). A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 349(5), 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021491spa
dc.source.instnameinstname:Universidad del Rosariospa
dc.source.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocURspa
dc.subjectAnálisis de decisión de Criterios Múltiplesspa
dc.subjectBevacizumabspa
dc.subjectCetuximabspa
dc.subjectNeoplasia Colorrectalspa
dc.subject.ddcAdministración generalspa
dc.subject.keywordMultiple Criteria Decision Analysisspa
dc.subject.keywordColorectal Neoplasmsspa
dc.subject.keywordCetuximabspa
dc.subject.keywordBevacizumabspa
dc.subject.keywordHealth and Economic Developmentspa
dc.subject.lembPromoción de saludspa
dc.titleAnálisis de decisión por múltiples criterios (MCDA); evaluación riesgo, beneficio y costo de cetuximab y bevacizumab en cáncer colorrectal metastásicospa
dc.title.TranslatedTitleMultiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); risk evaluation, cost-benefit of cetuximab and bevacizumab in metastatic colo-rectal cancerspa
dc.typemasterThesiseng
dc.type.documentTesisspa
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.type.spaTesis de maestríaspa
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando1 - 3 de 3
Miniatura
Nombre:
PisciottiChajin-IvanGregorio-2020.pdf
Tamaño:
597.14 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Tesis
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
PisciottiChajin-IvanGregorio-2020-2.pdf
Tamaño:
102.81 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Anexo 1
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
PisciottiChajin-IvanGregorio-2020-3.pdf
Tamaño:
113.94 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Anexo 2
Descargar
Colecciones
Maestría en Administración en Salud