Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 22, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating cancer treatments in hospital-based health technology
Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina1,2, Maria Del Pilar Estevez-Diz3, Jair Minoro Abe4
1Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil.
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.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Ethical Issues
Ethical Concerns in Healthcare:
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

