Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

CEA stands for carcinoembryonic antigen – a commonly used lab test in cancer care. Please use an alternative abbreviation for your paper such as CE or CA. CE might be better as CA is used as country code for Canada.

Page 3 – Inclusion criteria 1 – I am curious as to why include only studies done in Canada? Your own review is done in US and I am sure other cost effectiveness studies have been published by US authors that may be useful for this review. 22 studies total is a somewhat limited review.

It seems like authors forgot to format references # 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44.

Reference # 43 has not link or access date.

I fail to understand how reference #45 is relevant – I cannot access the full article but I assume it has something to do with “building communities”?

Author Response

Review #1 writes: CEA stands for carcinoembryonic antigen – a commonly used lab test in cancer care. Please use an alternative abbreviation for your paper such as CE or CA. CE might be better as CA is used as country code for Canada.

We have: replaced the commonly used CEA with CE Analysis to accommodate the reviewer's preferences.

Review #1 writes: Page 3 – Inclusion criteria 1 – I am curious as to why include only studies done in Canada? Your own review is done in US and I am sure other cost effectiveness studies have been published by US authors that may be useful for this review. 22 studies total is a somewhat limited review.

We have: considered this point.  The cost-effectiveness of anything depends on the context in which it is studied. Often treatments in the USA are not available in Canada; consequently, there are not clear advantages extending from a wider set of results beyond Canada and its treatment options when writing to a Canadian oncology audience. We agree that n = 22 studies seems small and we hope our study will stimulate more research to be conducted in this important area.

Review #1 writes: It seems like authors forgot to format references # 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44.

We have: ensured that these references match the journal’s required formatting.

Review #1 writes: Reference # 43 has not link or access date.

We have: added the appropriate citation information.

Review #1 writes: I fail to understand how reference #45 is relevant – I cannot access the full article but I assume it has something to do with “building communities”?

We have: adjusted the reference to ensure its relevance. The new reference is:

• • Chan, K.; Nam, S.; Evans, B.; de Oliveira, C.; Chambers, A.; Gavura, S.; Hoch, J.; Mercer, R. E.; Dai, W. F.; Beca, J.; Tadrous, M.; Isaranuwatchai, W. Developing a Framework to Incorporate Real-World Evidence in Cancer Drug Funding Decisions: The Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration. BMJ Open 2020, 10 (1). 

Reviewer 2 Report

The main question addressed by the research is how value and efficiency interventions will impact the average patient and the public healthcare payer? The topic is relevant in the field, because economic evaluations like cost-effectiveness is very important.  The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and the references are appropriate.

In terms of methodology, this study is undoubtedly a nice addition. I believe this type of research will save the reader a lot of effort. Thanks

Author Response

Thank you.  We appreciate the reviewer's careful reading of the manuscript.