Appendix B: Sources of evidence considered by the Committee

Appendix B: Sources of evidence considered by the Committee

  1. The assessment report for this appraisal was prepared by Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter:

    • Hoyle M, Crathorne L, Peters J et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy (review of technology appraisal 150 and part review of technology appraisal 118): a systematic review and economic model, June 2011

  2. The following organisations accepted the invitation to participate in this appraisal as consultees and commentators. They were invited to comment on the draft scope, assessment report and the appraisal consultation document (ACD). Organisations listed in I, II and III were also invited to make written submissions and have the opportunity to appeal against the final appraisal determination.

I Manufacturers/sponsors:

  • Amgen

  • Merck Serono

  • Roche Products

II Professional/specialist and patient/carer groups:

  • Beating Bowel Cancer

  • Bowel Cancer UK

  • Cancer Research UK

  • europacolon

  • Royal College of Nursing

  • Royal College of Pathologists

  • Royal College of Physicians

  • United Kingdom Oncology Nursing Society

III Other consultees:

  • Department of Health

  • NHS Telford and Wrekin

  • Welsh Government

IV Commentator organisations (without the right of appeal):

  • British National Formulary

  • Commissioning Support Appraisals Service

  • Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for Northern Ireland

  • Healthcare Improvement Scotland

  • Medac UK

  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit

  • National Cancer Research Institute

  • Pfizer

  • Sanofi

C The following individuals were selected from clinical specialist and patient expert nominations from the non-manufacturer/sponsor consultees and commentators. They participated in the Appraisal Committee discussions and provided evidence to inform the Appraisal Committee's deliberations. They gave their expert personal view on bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab by attending the initial Committee discussion and/or providing written evidence to the Committee. They were also invited to comment on the ACD.

  • Professor Mohammad Ilyas, Professor of Pathology, University of Nottingham, nominated by the Royal College of Pathologists – clinical specialist

  • Professor Daniel Hochhauser, Consultant in Medical Oncology, University College London, nominated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland – clinical specialist

  • Ian Beaumont, Director of Public Affairs, Bowel Cancer UK, nominated by Bowel Cancer UK – patient expert

  • Barbara Moss, nominated by Bowel Cancer UK – patient expert

Professor Daniel Hochhauser also attended the second Committee discussion.

D Representatives from the following manufacturers/sponsors attended Committee meetings. They contributed only when asked by the Committee Chair to clarify specific issues and comment on factual accuracy.

  • Amgen

  • Merck Serono

  • Roche Products

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)