ALESSANDRO GONCALVES CAMPOLINA
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/24 - Laboratório de Oncologia Experimental, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder
LIM/24 - Laboratório de Oncologia Experimental, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder
7 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 7 de 7
- Health Economic Evaluations of Cancer in Brazil: A Systematic Review(2018) CAMPOLINA, Alessandro G.; YUBA, Tania Y.; DECIMONI, Tassia C.; LEANDRO, Roseli; DIZ, Maria del Pilar Estevez; NOVAES, Hillegonda M. D.; SOAREZ, Patricia C. deBackground: A large number of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies have been published in developed countries. However, Brazilian HEE literature in oncology has not been studied. Objective: To investigate whether the scientific literature has provided a set of HEE in oncology capable of supporting decision making in the Brazilian context. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify and characterize studies in this field. We searched multiple databases selecting partial and full HEE studies in oncology (1998-2013). Results: Fifty-five articles were reviewed, of these, 33 (60%) were full health economic evaluations. Type of cancers most frequently studied were: breast (38.2%), cervical (14.6%), lung (10.9%) and colorectal (9.1%). Procedures (47.3%) were the technologies most frequently evaluated. In terms of the intended purposes of the technologies, most (63.6%) were treatments. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported have been below the cost-effectiveness threshold suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). Conclusions: There has been an increase in the number of HEEs related to cancer in Brazil. These studies may support decision-making processes regarding the coverage of and reimbursement of healthcare technologies for cancer treatment in Brazil.
- Value-based medicine in oncology: the importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks(2018) CAMPOLINA, Alessandro GonçalvesRecently, professional and healthcare-related entities have launched frameworks designed to assess the value of cancer innovations in multistakeholder decision processes. Among the most visible entities that propose and implement value frameworks in oncology are the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). However, these value frameworks have been criticized for conceptual inconsistencies, inability to include a greater variety of value criteria, and inadequate explanation of the uncertainty approach used in the modeling process. On the other hand, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a set of methods and processes that allow the multiple criteria involved in a decision to be explicitly addressed. This approach allows the identification of relevant decision criteria, gathering of evidence based on scientific literature, attribution of weights to the criteria and scores to the evidence raised, and aggregation of the weighted scores to constitute a global metric of value. The purpose of this article is to review the main features of these value frameworks in oncology and the importance of perspective for framework readiness to support healthcare decision-making based on MCDA methodology.
- Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review(2022) CAMPOLINA, Alessandro Goncalves; SUZUMURA, Erica Aranha; Quan Nha Hong; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho deIntroduction Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology. Areas covered Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria. Expert opinion There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.
- Effects of 3D image-guided brachytherapy compared to 2D conventional brachytherapy on clinical outcomes in patients with cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analyses(2021) SUZUMURA, Erica Aranha; GAMA, Layse Martins; JAHN, Beate; CAMPOLINA, Alessandro Goncalves; CARVALHO, Heloisa de Andrade; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho dePURPOSE: To assess the effects of three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy (3D BT) compared to bi-dimensional BT (2D BT) on clinical outcomes in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and LILACS for studies assessing the effects of 3D BT versus 2D BT on clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened retrieved citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias from eligible studies. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves considering the number of events, their timing and the followup of censored patients. We conducted meta-analyses of HR using the inverse-variance random-effects method. Risk Difference (RD) for toxicities were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method. We used the GRADE system to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty observational studies involving 4287 patients were included. The meta analyses assessing the effect of 3D BT versus 2D BT on overall survival resulted in a HR of 0.78 (95%CI 0.62-0.98), HR of 0.75 (95%CI 0.62-0.90) for pelvic disease-free survival, HR of 0.93 (95%CI 0.81-1.06) for metastatic disease-free survival, and HR of 0.77 (95%CI 0.59-0.99) for local control. Grade 3-4 global and gastrointestinal toxicities were, respectively, 9% lower (95%CI 6% to 11%) and 5% lower (95%CI 2% to 8%) in patients receiving 3D BT versus 2D BT. Certainty of evidence was very low for all assessed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study may suggest a benefit of 3D BT over conventional 2D BT on important clinical outcomes.
- Economic evaluation of plerixafor addition in the mobilization and leukapheresis of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation: a systematic review(2023) PASSOS, Roselene Mesquita Augusto; FELDENS, Tallys Kalynka; MARCOLINO, Miriam Allein Zago; GOUVEA, Aline Sampaio; OLIVEIRA, Lais Dos Santos; NASSER, Luisa Menardi; RODRIGUES, Roseli Fernandes; PEROBELLI, Leila de Lourdes Martins; CAMPOLINA, Alessandro Goncalves; NETO, Cesar de AlmeidaIntroduction: Although plerixafor in association with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can improve mobilization and collection of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) by leukapheresis, cost may limit its clinical application. The present study systematically reviews economic evaluations of plerixafor plus G-CSF usage compared to G-CSF alone and compares different strategies of plerixafor utilization in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. Areas covered: Relevant economic evaluations, partial or complete, were searched on PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for a period ending 30 June 2021. This systematic review was reported following the PRISMA Statement. Six economic evaluations were included, considering the use of upfront or just-in-time plerixafor compared to G-CSF alone or other plerixafor strategies. Most comparisons showed both increased cost and health benefits with the addition of plerixafor. Most analyses favored just-in-time plerixafor compared to upfront plerixafor, with a probable preference for broader cutoffs for just-in-time plerixafor initiation. Expert opinion: Plerixafor is a potentially cost-effective technology in the mobilization of HSC in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphomas eligible for autologous HSC transplantation. There is a decreased number of leukapheresis sessions and remobilizations and a higher yield of CD34+ cells.
- Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil(2017) CAMPOLINA, Alessandro G.; ROZMAN, Luciana M.; DECIMONI, Tassia C.; LEANDRO, Roseli; NOVAES, Hillegonda M. D.; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho DeBackground Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil. Objective The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil. Methods We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informacao da Rede Brasileira de Avaliacao de Tecnologias em Saude [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Results Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs. Conclusions Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.
- Simple but not simpler: a systematic review of Markov models for economic evaluation of cervical cancer screening(2018) VISCONDI, Juliana Yukari Kodaira; FAUSTINO, Christine Grutzmann; CAMPOLINA, Alessandro Goncalves; ITRIA, Alexander; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho deThe aim of this study was to critically evaluate the quality of the models used in economic evaluations of screening strategies for cervical cancer prevention. We systematically searched multiple databases, selecting model-based full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses) of cervical cancer screening strategies. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and performed data extraction. Methodological assessment of the quality of the models utilized formal checklists, and a qualitative narrative synthesis was performed. Thirty-eight articles were reviewed. The majority of the studies were conducted in high-income countries (82%, n=31). The Pap test was the most used screening strategy investigated, which was present in 86% (n=33) of the studies. Half of the studies (n=19) used a previously published Markov model. The deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed in 92% (n=35) of the studies. The mean number of properly reported checklist items was 9 out of the maximum possible 18. Items that were better reported included the statement of decision problem, the description of the strategies/comparators, the statement of time horizon, and information regarding the disease states. Compliance with some items of the checklist was poor. The Markov models for economic evaluation of screening strategies for cervical cancer varied in quality. The following points require improvement: 1) assessment of methodological, structural, heterogeneity, and parameter uncertainties; 2) model type and cycle length justification; 3) methods to account for heterogeneity; and 4) report of consistency evaluation (through calibration and validation methods).