Sir,
We thank Heong et al (2010) for their interest in our study on chemotherapy treatment pathways of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in the United Kingdom (Shabaruddin et al, 2010a).
The purpose of our national survey of UK consultant oncologists was to identify predominant treatment pathways within NHS CRC specialties and to determine the extent of variation within current practice. Economic models need to establish current practice as a basis from which to evaluate the incremental cost and benefits of introducing a new intervention, such as the UGT1A1 pharmacogenetic test.
In the United Kingdom, available national data sets do not provide the level of detail needed to describe current clinical practice and the respective outcomes. Some cancer-related registries do exist, such as the UK Association of Cancer Registries and the National Bowel Cancer Audit Programme for CRC surgeries, but do not contain data relevant to current clinical practice in oncology specialties. The National Cancer Intelligence Network (http://www.ncin.org.uk) is currently conducting a chemotherapy data set review that aims to capture data on all chemotherapy carried out in the country. The level of detail for the data collected is yet to be determined. It is necessary to consider that comprehensive UK NHS patient registries are not an easy option. The size of the NHS, funding constraints, issues with data management and quality assurance challenges preclude the establishment and maintenance of such registries for all conditions across the United Kingdom. In an ideal world, information technology in the NHS should allow extraction of data on current practice. This ideal situation does not exist in the current NHS (Anderson, 2010).
In the absence of real-world data on routine care, other means of generating parameters to inform economic analyses are necessary, which may be sufficient depending on the purpose of the evaluation (Cooper et al, 2007). Expert estimates are useful starting points to describe current practice and patients’ clinical pathways. It is necessary to elicit expert estimates from across the United Kingdom rather than from one locality in order to understand the variation in routine NHS practice.
Economic models allow the systematic compilation of data from various sources, such as epidemiological studies and clinical trials, within a single framework. Expert estimates are primarily used to inform model parameters in the absence of other data sources. The degrees of uncertainty in the parameters are then explored using the ranges and measures of variation from the expert estimates.
An economic model will allow for exploration of the key areas of uncertainties, generate the expected value of further research to minimise these uncertainties and help inform what research should be conducted to address them. Value of information analysis can indicate whether funding is better directed to more clinical trials or to setting up robust observational studies.
We believe that the usefulness of expert estimates will only be as good as the design, construct and framing of the questions asked. Our final questionnaire was informed by a pilot study of eight consultant oncologists. To address the concern of Heong et al regarding the agreement between expert estimates and standard practice, we present (Table 1) preliminary results from an observational study of 48 advanced CRC patients on IrMdG chemotherapy in a UK NHS tertiary care oncology centre (Shabaruddin et al, 2010b), in which there were similar parameters with the experts’ estimates (Shabaruddin et al, 2010a).
Currently, on the basis of our data, there is no evidence to suggest that pooled UK experts’ estimates varied widely from routine NHS practice. In the absence of other data sources, we believe that expert opinion is useful to inform economic evaluations and to help focus research resources by identifying key areas of uncertainties that offer the best value for future research investments.
Finally, we do agree with Heong et al on the need to collect data on current clinical practice and acknowledge the value of access to such data. The key question from the UK perspective is: who will pay and be responsible for collecting, storing and maintaining data on routine NHS clinical practice?
Change history
29 March 2012
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Anderson R (2010) Do summary care records have the potential to do more harm than good? Yes. BMJ 340: 3020
Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Paisley S, Jones DR (2007) Use of evidence in economic decision models: Practical issues and methodological challenges. Health Economics 16: 1277–1286
Heong V, Ananda S, Tie J, Gibbs P (2010) Guesstimates are not good enough for determining what is happening in routine care. Br J Cancer, e-pub ahead of print 9 November 2010; doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605998
Shabaruddin FH, Elliott RA, Valle JW, Newman WG, Payne K (2010a) Understanding chemotherapy treatment pathways of advanced colorectal cancer patients to inform an economic evaluation in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 103: 315–323
Shabaruddin FH, Elliott RA, Payne K (2010b) Examining patient-based costs for irinotecan chemotherapy: UK practice-based micro-costing study. Value in Health 13 (7): A261
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Shabaruddin, F., Elliott, R., Valle, J. et al. Reply: Guesstimates are not good enough for determining what is happening in routine care. Br J Cancer 103, 1887–1888 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605999
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605999