Search

Background: Cancer is a global public health problem, requiring efficient health system investments to deliver sustainable impact on population health. Access to medicines is a critical component of health systems, having a crucial role in delivering therapeutic benefits. Since 1977, the World Health Organization (WHO) has published a Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) that includes key health interventions for the prevention and control of conditions of public health relevance. Essential medicines are selected for inclusion in the EML based on the evidence of efficacy, safety, therapeutic value, and the potential to impact population health. With the rapid changes in the therapeutic landscape of cancer treatment with new medicine approvals, there is a critical need to select and prioritise specific cancer interventions based on their intrinsic value., Materials and Methods: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a decisional methodology based on a threshold with a minimum set of technical specifications and a consensus-based procedure for decisions to select candidate cancer medicines to be submitted to the WHO for consideration for the WHO EML., Results: ESMO recognises the WHO EML as an important reference guide for medicines that all countries should include in their national EMLs. Cancer medicines on the WHO EML are used in the treatment of the majority of cancers, and are recommended in the evidence-based ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines that medical oncologists use to treat patients. ESMO's submissions to the WHO EML in 2019 and 2021 and their respective outcomes are presented in the manuscript., Conclusion: Due to the rising costs associated with newly available therapies, structured, reproducible, and field-tested tools to evaluate the added clinical benefit from these therapies need to be implemented in pre-selecting potential candidate medicines to be included in the WHO EML. ESMO is proud to collaborate closely with WHO on this important global public health initiative., Competing Interests: Disclosure TA reports personal fees from CeCaVa, institutional grants and personal fees from Novartis, institutional grants from NeraCare, personal fees and travel grants from BMS, personal fees and travel grants from Pierre Fabre, institutional grants from Sanofi, institutional grants from SkylineDx and institutional grants from iFIT, outside the submitted work. GC has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo; has received grants or contracts from Merck and AstraZeneca; has received personal fees as advisory board member for AstraZeneca, BMS; Ellipsis, Merck; Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Veracyte; has received institutional research grant from Merck; has received institutional funding for phase I studies from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Blueprint Medicine, Daiichi Sankyo, Kymab, Novartis, Philogen, Roche, Sanofi; has received consulting fees from Roche, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Ellipsis, Gilead, Merck, Celcuity, Sanofi, Exact Sciences, and Daiichi Sankyo; has received payment or honoraria for presentations, lectures, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Seagen, Roche and Daiichi Sankyo; has received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Seagen, Ellipsis, Gilead, Merck, Celcuity, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo; has an advisory role and is Member of the Scientific Council of Europa Donna, is an Officer of the Consiglio Superiore di Sanità, Italian National Health Council as Advisor for Ministry of Health, and has an advisory role in Fondazione Beretta Cancer Research Foundation. RG reports being an invited speaker from Apogen, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Medicines for Europe, Mabxience and the European Access Academy (all with no fee received); she received personal fees from AstraZeneca and travel grants form Roche; she reports an advisory role for UICC ATOM Medicines (January 2023); she reports being a full member of the Cancer Drug Development Forum (CDDF); she is co-chair and member of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Healthcare Professional Working Party (HCPWP) and a member of the EMA Cancer Medicines Forum; she serves as expert for the evaluation of proposals submitted to Horizon Europe Health Cluster-for the Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA). DT reports being a member of the EMA Healthcare Professional Working Party (HCPWP), a member of the WHO SAGE IVD and a member of the WHO EML Cancer Medicines Working Group. GB, MG, NJL and GP are full-time employees of ESMO. All the other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies., Methods: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards., Results: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions., Conclusion: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised., Design: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached., Results: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described., Conclusions: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items., Competing Interests: Disclosure SFO reports research grants from Novartis and Celldex Therapeutics and consultancy fees from BMS (paid to the institution). EGEdV reports an advisory role at Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP, and Sanofi (paid to the institution), and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, Crescendo, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier, and Synthon (paid to the institution). BG reports receiving consulting fees from Vivio Health. BK reports honoraria for lectures by Ipsen, Novartis, and MSD. JB reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from AAA, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from Nanostring, non-financial support from Roche, grants and personal fees from Servier, and personal fees from Nutricia outside the submitted work. GP received institutional financial support for advisory board/consultancy from Roche, Amgen, Merck, MSD, BMS, and institutional support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Lilly. MPi reports a Scientific Board Member at Oncolytics, consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Camel-IDS, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Immutep, Seagen, NBE Therapeutics, Frame Therapeutics and research grants from AstraZeneca, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Roche-Genentech, Servier, Synthon (paid to the institution). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Kazakhstan, cancer is the second leading cause of death with a major public health and economic burden. In the last decade, cancer care and cancer medicine costs have significantly increased. To improve the efficiency and efficacy of cancer care expenditure and planning, the Kazakhstan Ministry of Health requested assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) to review its systemic cancer treatment protocols and essential medicines list and identify high-impact, effective regimens., Materials and Methods: ESMO developed a four-phase approach to review Kazakhstan cancer treatment protocols: (i) perform a systematic analysis of the country's cancer medicines and treatment protocols; (ii) cross-reference the country's cancer protocols with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and the European Medicines Agency's medicine availability and indications database; (iii) extract treatment recommendations from the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines; (iv) expert review for all cancer medicines not on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the country treatment protocols., Results: This ESMO four-phase approach led to the update of the Kazakhstan national essential cancer medicines list and the list of cancer treatment protocols. This review has led to the withdrawal of several low-value or non-evidence-based medicines and a budget increase for cancer care to include all essential and highly effective medicines and treatment options., Conclusion: When applied effectively, this four-phase approach can improve access to medicines, efficiency of expenditure and sustainability of cancer systems. The WHO-ESMO collaboration illustrated how, by sharing best practices, tools and resources, we can address access to cancer medicines and positively impact patient care., Competing Interests: Disclosure EGEdV declares institutional financial support for advisory board/consultancy from Sanofi, Daiichi, Sankyo, NSABP, Pfizer and Merck, and institutional support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, Genentech, Crescendo, Roche, AstraZeneca, Synthon, Nordic Nanovector, G1 Therapeutics, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, Servier and Radius Health. AI is a staff member of WHO and AI alone is responsible for the views expressed in this manuscript and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of WHO. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Click here to listen to the Podcast BACKGROUND: Form 1 of the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) serves to grade therapies with curative intent. Hitherto only few trials with curative intent have been field tested using form 1. We aimed to evaluate the applicability of the scale and to assess the reasonableness of the generated scores in early colon cancer, in order to identify shortcomings that may be rectified in future amendments., Methods: Adjuvant studies were identified in PubMed, Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency registration sites, as well as ESMO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were graded using form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 and field tested by ESMO Colorectal Cancer Faculty. Shortcomings of the scale were identified and evaluated., Results: Eighteen of 57 trials and 7 out of 14 meta-analyses identified met criteria for ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 grading. In stage III colon cancer, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses of modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based chemotherapy versus surgery scored ESMO-MCBS grade A and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comprising oxaliplatin added to this 5-FU backbone showed a more modest additional overall survival benefit (grade A and B). For stage II colon cancer, the findings are less consistent. The fluoropyrimidine trials in stage II were graded 'no evaluable benefit' but the most recent meta-analysis demonstrated a 5.4% survival advantage after 8 years follow-up (grade A). RCTs and a meta-analysis adding oxaliplatin demonstrated no added benefit. Exploratory toxicity evaluation and annotation was problematic given inconsistent toxicity reporting and limited results of late toxicity. Field testers (n=37) reviewed the scores, 25 confirmed their reasonableness, 12 found them mostly reasonable. Moreover, they identified the inability of crediting improved convenience in non-inferiority trials as a shortcoming., Conclusion: Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 provided very reasonable grading for adjuvant colon cancer studies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EGEdV reports Institutional Financial Support for her advisory role from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, NSABP, Pfizer, Sanofi, Synthon and Institutional Financial Support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Synthon, all outside the submitted work., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Click here to listen to the Podcast BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated value scale for solid tumour anticancer treatments. Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS, used to grade therapies with curative intent including adjuvant therapies, has only been evaluated for a limited number of studies. This is the first large-scale field testing in early breast cancer to assess the applicability of the scale to this data set and the reasonableness of derived scores and to identify any shortcomings to be addressed in future modifications of the scale., Method: Representative key studies and meta-analyses of the major modalities of adjuvant systemic therapy of breast cancer were identified for each of the major clinical scenarios (HER2-positive, HER2-negative, endocrine-responsive) and were graded with form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS. These generated scores were reviewed by a panel of experts for reasonableness. Shortcomings and issues related to the application of the scale and interpretation of results were identified and critically evaluated., Results: Sixty-five studies were eligible for evaluation: 59 individual studies and 6 meta-analyses. These studies incorporated 101 therapeutic comparisons, 61 of which were scorable. Review of the generated scores indicated that, with few exceptions, they generally reflected contemporary standards of practice. Six shortcomings were identified related to grading based on disease-free survival (DFS), lack of information regarding acute and long-term toxicity and an inability to grade single-arm de-escalation scales., Conclusions: Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS is a robust tool for the evaluation of the magnitude of benefit studies in early breast cancer. The scale can be further improved by addressing issues related to grading based on DFS, annotating grades with information regarding acute and long-term toxicity and developing an approach to grade single-arm de-escalation studies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SP-S reports institutional financial support for her advisory role from Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, NanoString; EGEdV reports institutional financial support for her advisory role from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, NSABP, Pfizer, Sanofi, Synthon and institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Synthon; MJP reports scientific board member for Oncolytics, consultant honoraria from AstraZeneca, Camel-IDS, Crescendo Biologics, Debiopharm, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Huya, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Periphagen, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, research grants to institute AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Roche-Genentech, Servier, Synthon; FC reports institutional financial support for her advisory role from Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Teva., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Objective: Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)., Methods: Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies., Results: In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described., Conclusions: Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BK has received honoraria for lectures from Celgene and Novartis; NB has received honoraria for consulting and advisory role from Ariad, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer; EGEdV declares advisory role for Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, NSABP, Pfizer, Sanofi and Synthon, and institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Roche and Synthon; PG has received honoraria for lectures/advisory boards and research funding from AbbVie/Pharmacyclics, Acerta/AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Sunesis and Verastem; NG has received honoraria for lectures, advisory boards and research support from Amgen, Pfizer and Incyte; VG-C has received honoraria for lectures from Janssen and for participation in advisory boards from Prothena; BH has received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer and BMS, and for participation in advisory boards from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbvie, Pfizer, BMS and Incyte; UJ has declared honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Gilead, Bioverativ, Janssen, MSD, Sandoz, Takeda and Pfizer; M-VM has received honoraria for lectures from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda and Amgen, and for participation in advisory boards from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline and PharmaMar; MR has received honoraria for lectures from Novarits, Ipsen, Celgene and Eisai; LS has received honoraria for lectures from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and for participation in advisory boards from Janssen; PS has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda and Amgen, and research support from Celgene, Janssen and Amgen., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Purpose: To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies., Methods: The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance., Results: The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity., Conclusion: The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

Background: A recent international consensus panel identified 13 major indicators to assess the level of integration between oncology and palliative care. We examined these indicators among European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Designated Centres (ESMO-DCs) of Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care (PC) and determined the centre characteristics associated with greater integration., Methods: This is a preplanned secondary analysis of a recent survey to characterise the structure, processes and outcomes of the palliative care programmes at ESMO-DCs. We assessed the level of integration using 13 major indicators. We calculated two Palliative Care and Oncology Integration Indexes consisting of all 13 indicators (PCOI-13, range 0-13) and 9 of the 13 indicators (PCOI-9, range 0-9), with a higher index indicating greater integration., Results: The survey response rate was 152/184 (83%). Among the 13 major indicators, interdisciplinary team was most likely to be achieved (95%), while early referral to palliative care (median time from referral to death >6 months before death) was only present in 24 (20%) of ESMO-DCs. The median PCOI-13 was 7.8 (IQR 6.4-9.6) and the median PCOI-9 was 6 (IQR 5-7). The presence of dually trained palliative oncologists was associated with higher PCOI-13 (median 8.4 vs 7.0; p=0.01) and PCOI-9 (median 6 vs 5; p=0.03). Non-tertiary hospitals generally had higher PCOI-13 (median 8.6 vs 7.2; p=0.01) and ESMO-DCs outside of Europe had higher PCOI-9 (median 7 vs 6; p=0.03)., Conclusions: Assessment of the level of integration at ESMO-DCs with PCOIs highlighted strengths, areas for further development and how double-boarded palliative oncologists may promote integration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. Grading is guided by a dual rule comparing the relative benefit (RB) and the absolute benefit (AB) achieved by the therapy to prespecified threshold values. The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 dual rule evaluates the RB of an experimental treatment based on the lower limit of the 95%CI (LL95%CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) along with an AB threshold. This dual rule addresses two goals: inclusiveness: not unfairly penalising experimental treatments from trials designed with adequate power targeting clinically meaningful relative benefit; and discernment: penalising trials designed to detect a small inconsequential benefit., Methods: Based on 50 000 simulations of plausible trial scenarios, the sensitivity and specificity of the LL95%CI rule and the ESMO-MCBS dual rule, the robustness of their characteristics for reasonable power and range of targeted and true HRs, are examined. The per cent acceptance of maximal preliminary grade is compared with other dual rules based on point estimate (PE) thresholds for RB., Results: For particularly small or particularly large studies, the observed benefit needs to be relatively big for the ESMO-MCBS dual rule to be satisfied and the maximal grade awarded. Compared with approaches that evaluate RB using the PE thresholds, simulations demonstrate that the MCBS approach better exhibits the desired behaviour achieving the goals of both inclusiveness and discernment., Conclusions: RB assessment using the LL95%CI for HR rather than a PE threshold has two advantages: it diminishes the probability of excluding big benefit positive studies from achieving due credit and, when combined with the AB assessment, it increases the probability of downgrading a trial with a statistically significant but clinically insignificant observed benefit., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors have declared the following: JB: director of EORTC. EORTC conducts many studies sponsored by, or otherwise supported by, a large number of companies. EORTC is an independent research organisation. MJP: board member: Radius. Consultant (honoraria): AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Crescendo Biologics, Periphagen, Huya, Debiopharm and PharmaMar. Research grants to institute: AstraZeneca, Lilly, MDS, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Synthon, Radius and Servier. Speakers bureau/stock ownership: none. GP: consulting and advisory services, and research support: Amgen, Merck, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, MSD and Lilly. J-YD: compensated participation to advisory boards, lecture and symposia: Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Sirtex until April 2016. No further compensated participation in industry events from May 2016 onwards. JT: advisory boards for Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Genentech, Lilly, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Symphogen, Taiho and Takeda. CCZ: honoraria: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ariad and Newgen. EGEdV: currently conducting research sponsored by the following companies: Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Chugai Pharma, Synthon, AstraZeneca, Radius Health, CytomX Therapeutics and Nordic Nanovector (all payments to the institution). Consulting or advisory role for the following companies: Synthon, Medication and Merck (all payments to the institution). Not a member of any speakers' bureau.

Background: The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review., Methods: The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board., Results: Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1)., Conclusions: ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a standardised, generic, validated tool to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anticancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS is intended to both assist oncologists in explaining the likely benefits of a particular treatment to their patients as well as to aid public health decision makers' prioritise therapies for reimbursement. From its inception the ESMO-MCBS Working Group has invited questions and critiques to promote understanding and to address misunderstandings regarding the nuanced use of the scale, and to identify shortcomings in the scale to be addressed in future planned revisions and updates. The ESMO-MCBS V.1.0 has attracted many questions regarding its development, structure and potential applications. These questions, together with responses from the ESMO-MCBS Working Group, have been edited and collated, and are herein presented as a supplementary resource., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared.