進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0408201722400800
論文名稱(中文) 運用多準則決策分析法進行以實證為基礎的價值評估:以轉移性結腸直腸癌之既有標靶藥品為例
論文名稱(英文) Evidence-Based Value Assessment on Targeted Therapies for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment: Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 臨床藥學與藥物科技研究所
系所名稱(英) Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical sciences
學年度 105
學期 2
出版年 106
研究生(中文) 林佳諭
研究生(英文) Jia-Yu Lin
電子信箱 nancy045775@gmail.com
學號 S66044034
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 233頁
口試委員 召集委員-張啟仁
口試委員-高雅慧
口試委員-許美英
口試委員-郭垂文
指導教授-徐之昇
共同指導教授-林鵬展
中文關鍵字 價值評估  多準則決策分析法  層級分析法  轉移性結腸直腸癌  標靶藥物 
英文關鍵字 Metastatic colorectal cancer  Targeted therapy  Value assessment  Multi-criteria decision analysis  Analytic hierarchy process 
學科別分類
中文摘要 研究背景
藥物價值評估為一多層面的考量,針對不同類型的決策者更動其功能及應用,針對藥物納入保險給付決策,考量層面涵蓋臨床、經濟及社會。為擴大公民參與,從藥物專家決策模式改由多元組成成員的全民健康保險藥物給付項目及支付標準共同擬訂會議,針對臨床需求、藥物之預算衝擊等考量評估後,決定是否納入健保給付。然而該多元組成的利益團體代表對於健保收載藥物與否之著眼點可能有所差異,並且尚無一系統性決定的收載原則,故如何將多元面向準則的衡量應用於藥物價值評估及決定給付與否,有必要進行深入分析及探討。另外,結腸直腸癌之發生人數為目前國人十大癌症中最多的癌症,其發生率和死亡率近年來維持著穩定且居高不下的趨勢。轉移性結腸直腸癌除了透過手術及使用化學治療藥物,可考慮搭配標靶藥物進行治療。本研究目的依序有三項:(1) 初步建構一套多元面向藥物價值的評估準則與模型;(2) 分析不同類型的健保給付決策者及臨床專家對於衡量面向及準則之間的差異;(3) 運用上述模型進行轉移性結腸直腸癌既有標靶藥物之完整價值評估。

研究方法
本研究利用多準則決策分析法 (Multi-criteria decision analysis,MCDA) 評估Bevacizumab,Cetuximab,Panitumumab,Aflibercept與Regorafenib等五個治療轉移性結腸直腸癌的標靶藥物。參考 MCDA 的執行步驟逐步進行:
(1) 建立決策內容、(2) 建構相關評估準則、(3) 決定各評估準則的權重、(4) 統整藥物於各準則的表現資訊、(5) 標靶藥物於各準則的評分、(6) 計算各標靶藥物的整體分數、(7) 處理不確定性並進行敏感性分析,以及(8) 詮釋相關數據並公佈結果。經專家效度評估後,MCDA 模型中包括三個面向與九個準則:(1)臨床面向中包含「相對療效」、「相對安全性」及「方便性與生活品質」準則;(2)經濟面向中包含「成本效益」、「病患人數」和「藥品費用」準則;(3)社會面向有「創新程度」、「社會關注及病人需求」和「其他國家納入保險給付與否」準則。本研究透過訪談式問卷調查,分別蒐集標靶藥物於各面向準則的表現資訊與面向及準則之權重。面向與準則的權重資訊部分,其訪談對象與人數組成係參考專家會議和共同擬訂會議成員類型,共 30 位受訪者;標靶藥物的表現資訊部分與結腸直腸癌外科醫師、血液腫瘤科醫師及癌症臨床藥師等共 10 位臨床專家進行訪談。最後計算各標靶藥物於不同面向與準則的整體分數,以及進行敏感性分析,以評估研究結果的穩固性 (Robustness)。

研究結果
經過資料蒐集和分析後,本研究重要結果如下:(1) 整體而言,以臨床面向權重最高;(2) 依不同受訪者屬性區分後,健保署代表較重視臨床與經濟面向;(3) 整體來看,臨床面向中,「相對療效」準則的權重最高;經濟面向中,「成本效益」準則最受重視;社會面向中,側重「社會關注及病人需求」準則;(4) 打破面向框架進行準則之間的比較後,整體以「相對療效」準則權重最高,且依不同受訪者屬性分析後,部分準則之權重略有不同;(5) 針對既有轉移性結腸直腸癌標靶藥物進行各準則之價值評估,整體價值由高至低依序為:Cetuximab (總分分數67.332),Bevacizumab (66.086),Panitumumab (64.06),Aflibercept (57.846),Regorafenib (56.732);倘若以病友團體代表及藥廠的權重分數傾向來分析,不影響整體之藥物評估結果。(6)針對調整社會面向權重之敏感性分析,Bevacizumab及Regorafenib易受影響,但不影響整體之藥物評估結果。


結論
本研究建議健保署應建立「多元面向準則」、「多觀點」且「整合性評估」的評估機制全面地分析藥物價值。多元面向準則的建立會增加評估的完整性,以利於提供完整的藥物價值評估結果;權重的整合評估透過考量決策者的偏好程度,以獲得貼近實際評估情形的資訊進行分析;納入多觀點的建議能夠輔助決策者檢視其他需求及考量。
英文摘要 Health technology assessment (HTA) is a comprehensive assessment of the clinical, economic, and social issues. Many countries established organizations of HTA to evaluate drug information by evidence-based approach. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), a structured approach that supports decision-makers to assess and compare multiple options among multiple dimensions and criteria, which can be applied in evaluation of insurance coverage and reimbursement. This study aims to establish a decision-making model with multiple criteria for appraisal and reimbursement, to compare viewpoints toward various dimensions and criteria from different stakeholders, and to evaluate the five targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer. Criteria selection, weights and other information about the criteria and performances of targeted therapies were obtained by medical expert interview and questionnaire analysis. We interviewed 30 stakeholders for weighting of criteria and interviewed 10 clinical experts for scoring of options. This study found that most of the stakeholders take “clinical value” (especially “comparative effectiveness”) as the most important dimension (criteria). Overall, cetuximab has the highest value, followed by bevacizumab and panitumumab. This study is a pilot study, which use MCDA to conduct a comprehensive value assessment. The variations of weightings for dimensions and criteria from different stakeholders are reported. Both overall and specific performance of targeted therapies by dimensions, criteria and stakeholders are also evaluated. The findings of this study will be a base for developing further useful decision models to evaluate the comprehensive value of medicine in the future.
論文目次 中文摘要 i
Extracted Abstract iv
目錄 viii
表目錄 xii
圖目錄 xvii
第一篇、運用多準則決策分析法進行以實證為基礎的價值評估:
以轉移性結腸直腸癌之既有標靶藥物為例 1
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究背景與動機 1
第二節、研究目的與重要性 4
第二章、文獻回顧 5
第一節、價值評估 5
一、價值定義 5
二、價值評估功能 5
三、藥物價值評估之學術探討 7
第二節、藥物價值評估方法 9
一、價值評估之類型與方法 9
二、多準則決策分析法 14
三、層級分析法 26
第三節、藥物納入醫療保險給付之決策考量 33
一、國外藥物納入醫療保險給付之決策考量 33
二、台灣藥物納入給付流程之歷程演進 37
三、醫療科技評估報告內容項目 42
第四節、轉移性結腸直腸癌 44
一、結腸直腸癌之流行病學與危險因子 44
二、轉移性結腸直腸癌簡介 45
三、標靶藥物治療 46
四、既有標靶藥物之醫療科技評估報告回顧 48
第三章、研究方法 72
第一節、研究架構 72
第二節、轉移性結腸直腸癌既有標靶藥物之多準則決策分析 73
一、建立決策內容 Defining the decision problem 73
二、建構相關評估準則 Selecting and structuring criteria 73
三、決定各評估準則的權重 Weighting criteria 77
四、統整藥物於各準則的評分資訊 Measuring performance 79
五、標靶藥物於各準則的評分 Scoring alternatives 84
六、計算各標靶藥物的整體分數 Calculating aggregate scores 85
七、處理不確定性並進行敏感性分析 Dealing with uncertainty 85
八、詮釋相關數據並公佈結果 Interpretation and reporting the results 86
第四章、研究結果 87
第一節、評估面向與評估準則之權重 87
一、評估面向與評估準則之專家效度分析結果 87
二、評估面向之權重 87
三、個別面向中,各評估準則之權重 90
四、在不考慮評估面向的框架下,所有評估準則之權重 105
第二節、既有標靶藥物之整體價值評分 113
一、評分資訊問卷之專家效度評估 113
二、各標靶藥物於各準則之評分 113
三、標靶藥品之整體價值結果 113
四、敏感性分析 (Sensitivity analysis) 116
第五章、研究討論 120
第一節、多面向藥物價值評估 120
第二節、多觀點藥物價值評估 121
第三節、整合性藥物價值評估 125
第四節、面向與評估準則之權重 126
第五節、既有標靶藥物之整體價值評分 132
第六節、訪談對象開放性建議 139
第七節、研究優勢、限制與未來研究方向建議 147
第六章、結論與建議 149
第二篇、臨床藥事服務:成大醫院免疫檢查哨抑制劑使用療效及安全性之病歷回顧 150
第一章、服務背景 150
第二章、目的與重要性 156
第三章、方法 157
第四章、服務結果 159
第一節、研究對象基本特性 159
第二節、免疫檢查哨抑制劑處方情形 164
第三節、藥物治療效果 168
第四節、不良事件發生情形 170
第五章、討論與建議 178
第六章、結論 188
參考文獻 189
附錄 201
附錄一:新藥價值評估問卷內容 201
附錄二:新藥價值評估相關研究結果 205
附錄三:醫療科技評估執行方法建議 207
附錄四:2013及2014年十大癌症發生率及死亡率 214
附錄五:既有轉移性結腸直腸癌標靶藥物之現行健保規範 218
附錄六:結腸直腸癌既有標靶藥品評估準則之權重調查問卷 221
附錄七:結腸直腸癌既有標靶藥品評分問卷 223


表目錄
表2-1-1新藥價值評估研究結果之重要面向及主要考量因素 8
表2-2-1價值評估方法之操作特性 12
表2-2-2量化評估方法之整體特性 13
表2-2-3 EVIDEM架構之評估準則及評分尺度 16
表2-2-4多準則決策分析應用之類型、決策對象及應用案例等內容彙整 20
表2-2-5 MCDA執行步驟及相關說明 22
表2-2-6 AHP方法要素間評估尺度說明 29
表2-2-7隨機指標對照表 31
表2-3-1歐洲國家藥物納入保險給付之考量決策 34
表2-3-2新藥分類 38
表2-3-3參考品核價原則 39
表2-3-4新藥類型及核價方式 39
表2-3-5共同擬定會議代表之成員背景與人數 40
表2-3-6醫療科技評估報告內容主要項目 43
表2-4-1 TFDA 予以藥物許可證時間點及標靶藥物作用機轉 47
表2-4-2標靶藥物於健保給付後臨床上治療情境之選擇 52
表2-4-3標靶藥物於健保給付後臨床上治療情境之詳細用藥選擇 52
表2-4-4政府主管機關許可適應症 53
表2-4-5轉移性結腸直腸癌既有標靶藥物之成分、劑型、使用劑量及用法 55
表2-4-6加拿大、澳洲、英國及蘇格蘭醫療科技評估報告建議收載內容彙整 56
表2-4-7美國FDA目標適應症之核准使用情形 57
表2-4-8歐洲藥物管理局及美國食品藥物管理局之適應症彙整 59
表2-4-9標靶藥物臨床試驗療效結果整理 62
表2-4-10標靶藥品臨床試驗安全性結果 65
表2-4-11健保收載標靶藥品之第一至五年財務衝擊狀況彙整 69
表2-4-12標靶藥物獲得保險給付之國家 70
表2-4-13標靶藥品之國際藥價與國內健保藥價* 71
表3-2-1問卷內容效度評估專家姓名及專長領域 74
表3-2-2問卷各準則衡量方式 76
表3-2-3各評估準則、資料來源、其他假設情形及計算方式 80
表3-2-4各準則之評分標準 84
表4-1-1整體評估面向之權重 88
表4-1-2不同受訪者屬性之面向權重 89
表4-1-3整體及受訪者屬性對各面向權重之變異程度情形 89
表4-1-4整體於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 91
表4-1-5整體於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 91
表4-1-6整體於社會面向中評估準則之權重 92
表4-1-7健保署代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 93
表4-1-8健保署代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 93
表4-1-9健保署代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 93
表4-1-10食品藥物管理署代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 94
表4-1-11食品藥物管理署代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 95
表4-1-12食品藥物管理署代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 95
表4-1-13專家學者代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 96
表4-1-14專家學者代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 96
表4-1-15專家學者代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 97
表4-1-16病友團體代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 98
表4-1-17病友團體代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 98
表4-1-18病友團體代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 98
表4-1-19醫師代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 99
表4-1-20醫師代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 100
表4-1-21醫師代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 100
表4-1-22藥師代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 101
表4-1-23藥師代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 101
表4-1-24藥師代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 102
表4-1-25醫院代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 103
表4-1-26醫院代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 103
表4-1-27醫院代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 103
表4-1-28業界代表於臨床面向中評估準則之權重 104
表4-1-29業界代表於經濟面向中評估準則之權重 105
表4-1-30業界代表於社會面向中評估準則之權重 105
表4-1-31整體及不同受訪者屬性對評估準則之權重衡量狀況 111
表4-2-1標靶藥物於各準則下之評估分數 114
表4-2-2標靶藥物之整體價值結果 115
表5-1-1特定評估準則考量之權重加總 120
表5-1-2特定評估準則考量之藥物價值評估結果 121
表5-4-1評估準則之專家建議事項及研究者回覆內容 127
表5-4-2權重比較之專家建議事項及研究者回覆內容 128
表5-5-1標靶藥品評估之專家建議事項及研究者回覆內容 133
表5-6-1預算衝擊之分析架構 140
表5-6-2訪談對象之開放性建議及研究者建議 144
表2-1-1-1 TFDA 對於免疫檢查哨抑制劑之核准適應症 151
表2-1-1-2非第一線使用檢查哨抑制劑之非小細胞肺癌免疫檢查哨抑制劑臨床試驗療效及收案病患特性 153
表2-1-1-3非第一線使用檢查哨抑制劑之非小細胞肺癌免疫檢查哨抑制劑臨床試驗安全性結果 155
表2-4-1-1研究對象基本特性 159
表2-4-1-2研究對象基本特性(生化檢驗數值) 160
表2-4-1-3研究對象基本特性(血液及核醫免疫檢驗數值) 161
表2-4-1-4研究對象之共病症 162
表2-4-1-5研究對象之長期合併用藥 163
表2-4-2-1使用適應症情形 165
表2-4-2-2單一用藥處方型態 166
表2-4-2-3 Nivolumab 合併用藥處方型態 167
表2-4-2-4 Pembrolizumab 合併用藥處方型態 167
表2-4-2-5 Nivolumab 及 Ipilimumab 合併用藥處方型態 168
表2-4-3-1肺癌病人基因相關檢測特性 169
表2-4-3-2整體及肺癌病患之整體存活期及無惡化存活期中位數 169
表2-4-4-1血中肌酸酐增加之發生率及嚴重程度 170
表2-4-4-2 AST 增加之發生率及嚴重程度 171
表2-4-4-3 ALT 增加之發生率及嚴重程度 171
表2-4-4-4總膽色素增加之發生率及嚴重程度 172
表2-4-4-5低血鈉之發生率及嚴重程度 172
表2-4-4-6血鉀濃度異常之發生率及嚴重程度 173
表2-4-4-7低白蛋白血症之發生率及嚴重程度 174
表2-4-4-8血小板減少之發生率及嚴重程度 175
表2-4-4-9免疫相關藥物不良事件類型及發生比率 176
表2-4-4-10藥物不良事件類型及發生比率 176
表2-5-1-1非鱗狀非小細胞肺癌病患使用研究藥物前之治療情形 178
表2-5-1-2本研究結果與已接受治療之非小細胞肺癌臨床試驗結果比較表 179
表2-5-1-3投藥後至第一次免疫相關不良事件之發生時間 180
表2-5-1-4投藥後至第一次非免疫相關不良事件之發生時間 180
表2-5-1-5肝炎帶原及感染者之不良反應類型及發生比率 182
表2-5-1-6 FDA 核准 Nivolumab 的使用情形 183
表2-5-1-7 FDA 核准 Pembrolizumab 的使用情形 184
表2-5-1-8 FDA 核准 Ipilimumab 的使用情形 184
表2-5-1-9免疫檢查哨抑制劑 TFDA 核准適應症及使用劑量 185
表2-5-1-10目前單獨使用 Nivolumab 和 Nivolumab 與 Ipilimumab 併用執行中的臨床試驗 186
表2-5-1-11目前 Pembrolizumab 執行中的臨床試驗案 187
附錄表1 2013年十大癌症(不含原位癌)發生率(每十萬人口) 214
附錄表2 2014年十大癌症(不含原位癌)發生率(每十萬人口) 215
附錄表3 2013年十大癌症死亡率(每十萬人口) 216
附錄表4 2014年十大癌症死亡率(每十萬人口) 217


圖目錄
圖1-1-1結腸直腸癌之標準化發生率和死亡率趨勢圖 2
圖2-1-1評估面向及重要考量因素之重要性高低 8
圖2-2-1價值評估方法架構及類別 11
圖2-2-2成對比較矩陣A 29
圖2-2-3行向量平均值標準化法計算公式 30
圖2-2-4一致性指標相關計算公式 31
圖2-2-5一致性比率計算公式 31
圖2-3-1藥物納入保險給付流程 33
圖2-3-2藥物納入健保給付評估流程圖 42
圖2-4-1結腸直腸癌之五年內存活率 45
圖2-4-2美國國家癌症資訊網 (NCCN) 2017 年第 1 版治療指引建議 48
圖3-1-1研究流程圖 72
圖3-2-1評估面向及準則架構樹狀圖 75
圖3-2-2評估面向及準則權重之訪談對象組成及人數 78
圖3-2-3面向及準則的權重評估方式 79
圖3-2-4標靶藥物評分結果之訪談對象組成及人數 85
圖4-1-1整體評估面向之權重分佈 87
圖4-1-2不同受訪者屬性之面向權重分佈 88
圖4-1-3整體各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 91
圖4-1-4健保署代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 92
圖4-1-5食品藥物管理署代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 94
圖4-1-6專家學者代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 96
圖4-1-7病友團體代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 97
圖4-1-8醫師代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 99
圖4-1-9藥師代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 101
圖4-1-10醫院代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 102
圖4-1-11業界代表於各面向中評估準則之權重分佈 104
圖4-1-12整體於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 106
圖4-1-13健保署代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 106
圖4-1-14食品藥物管理署代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 107
圖4-1-15專家學者代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 107
圖4-1-16病友團體代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 108
圖4-1-17醫師代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 108
圖4-1-18藥師代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 109
圖4-1-19醫院代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 109
圖4-1-20業界代表於考量面向權重後各評估準則之權重分佈 110
圖4-2-1標靶藥物之整體價值結果 115
圖4-2-2臨床面向權重之敏感性試驗 117
圖4-2-3經濟面向權重之敏感性試驗 117
圖4-2-4社會面向權重之敏感性試驗 118
圖4-2-5相對療效準則權重之敏感性試驗 118
圖4-2-6安全性準則權重之敏感性試驗 119
圖4-2-7成本效益準則權重之敏感性試驗 119
圖5-1-1特定評估準則考量之藥物價值評估結果 120
圖5-2-1病友團體及藥廠代表與其他受訪者之評估面向權重分佈 122
圖5-2-2病友及藥廠代表與其他受訪者之臨床面向內準則權重分佈 122
圖5-2-3病友及藥廠代表與其他受訪者之經濟面向內準則權重分佈 122
圖5-2-4病友及藥廠代表與其他受訪者之社會面向內準則權重分佈 123
圖5-2-5其他受訪者之評估準則權重分佈 123
圖5-2-6病友及藥廠代表之評估準則權重分佈 123
圖5-2-7其他受訪者之藥物價值評估結果 124
圖5-2-8病友及藥廠代表之藥物價值評估結果 124
圖5-3-1未進行權重整合之藥物價值評估結果 125
圖2-1-1-1免疫檢查哨抑制劑之作用機轉及藥物分類 150
圖2-1-1-2鱗狀細胞之非小細胞肺癌病患PD-L1表現量 152
圖2-1-1-3非鱗狀細胞之非小細胞肺癌病患PD-L1表現量 152
附錄圖1臨床效益面向中不同受訪者屬性對重要考量因素之差異 205
附錄圖2社會影響及經濟效益面向中不同受訪者屬性對重要考量因素之差異 205
附錄圖3病人考量面向中不同受訪者屬性對重要考量因素之差異 206
附錄圖4醫療可行性面向中不同受訪者屬性對重要考量因素之差異 206






參考文獻 1. Boztepe S. User Value: Competing Theories and Models; 2007.
2. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. US Value Assessment Frameworks Initiative Documents Draft White Paper, Section 2 Value and Perspective: An Overview. July 7, 2017 2017. https://www.ispor.org/USValueAssessmentFrameworks/STF-White-Paper-Section2-DRAFT-for-Member-Review.pdf (accessed July 22 2017).
3. Sorenson C, Lavezzari G, Daniel G, et al. Advancing Value Assessment in the United States: A Multistakeholder Perspective. Value Health 2017; 20(2): 299-307.
4. World Health Organization. Operational principles for good pharmaceutical procurement: Strategic objectives for good pharmaceutical procurement. 1999. http://www.who.int/3by5/en/who-edm-par-99-5.pdf (accessed July 22 2017).
5. Antonijevic ZE. Optimization of Pharmaceutical R&D Programs and Portfolios Chapter 2 Clinical Aspects of Pharmaceutical Portfolio Management; 2015.
6. 張啟仁. 新藥價值評估研究. 社團法人台灣藥物經濟暨效果研究學會; 2016.
7. Mt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Wang N, et al. Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2014; 23(7): 667-78.
8. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(2): 376-88.
9. Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, et al. Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(4): 369-75.
10. 全民健保瞭望台. June 21, 2017. http://nhi.cph.ntu.edu.tw/ (accessed July 9 2017).
11. 陳昭姿. 歷年健保新藥管理趨勢回顧. 2014.
12. 衛生福利部國民健康署. 中華民國 102 年癌症登記報告.
13. 衛生福利部國民健康署. 中華民國103年癌症登記報告.
14. 衛生福利部國民健康署. 癌症登記線上互動查詢系統. September 8, 2016. https://cris.hpa.gov.tw/pagepub/Home.aspx?itemNo=cr.q.50 (accessed May 25 2017).
15. 台灣癌症登記中心. 台灣10大癌症99-103年新發個案存活率. http://tcr.cph.ntu.edu.tw/uploadimages/Survival_99_103.pdf (accessed June 11 2017).
16. Joseph T. Dipiro. Colorectal cancer. Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach 7th Edition: McGraw Hill Humanities; 2009: 2175.
17. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Colon Cancer (Version 1.2017). 2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf (accessed May 25 2017).
18. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Rectal Cancer (Version 1.2017). 2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf (accessed May 25 2017).
19. 社團法人台灣藥物經濟暨效果研究學會. 學會介紹-理事長的話. 2013. http://www.taspor.org.tw/about.php?id=32 (accessed May 29 2017).
20. Belton V ST. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. . Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
21. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016; 19(1): 1-13.
22. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(4): 345-65.
23. Le Gales C, Moatti JP. Searching for consensus through multi-criteria decision analysis. Assessment of screening strategies for hemoglobinopathies in southeastern France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6(3): 430-49.
24. Dolan JG, Bordley DR. Isoniazid prophylaxis: the importance of individual values. Med Decis Making 1994; 14(1): 1-8.
25. Perez Encinas M, Fernandez MA, Martin ML, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis for determining drug therapy for intermittent claudication. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 1998; 20(5): 425-31.
26. Wenstop F, Magnus P. Value focused rationality in AIDS policy. Health Policy 2001; 57(1): 57-72.
27. Diaby V, Lachaine J. An application of a proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: the case of Cote d'Ivoire. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011; 9(6): 389-402.
28. Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health 2012; 15(6): 961-70.
29. Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expect 2015; 18(6): 1894-905.
30. EVIDEM. Latest MCDA publications. November 7, 2016. https://www.evidem.org/news-publications/publications-presentations/latest-mcda-publications/ (accessed June 17 2017).
31. Byun J-H, Kwon S-H, Ha J-H, Lee E-K. A benefit–risk assessment model for statins using multicriteria decision analysis based on a discrete choice experiment in Korean patients. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2016; 12: 965-74.
32. de Greef-van der Sandt I, Newgreen D, Schaddelee M, et al. A quantitative benefit-risk assessment approach to improve decision making in drug development: Application of a multicriteria decision analysis model in the development of combination therapy for overactive bladder. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2016; 99(4): 442-51.
33. European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project: Work package 1 report: Description of the current practice of benefit-risk assessment for centralised procedure products in the European Union regulatory network. 2011. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/07/WC500109478.pdf (accessed August 3 2017).
34. Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M. Implementation of EUnetHTA core Model(R) in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(1): 105-12.
35. Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith JA, Bevan G. STAR--people-powered prioritization: a 21st-century solution to allocation headaches. Med Decis Making 2014; 34(8): 965-75.
36. Dolan JG, Boohaker E, Allison J, Imperiale TF. Patients' preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making 2013; 33(1): 59-70.
37. Derrett S, Devlin N, Hansen P, Herbison P. Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a prospective study of clinical priority assessment criteria in New Zealand. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19(1): 91-105.
38. Phillips LD, Bana e Costa CA. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Annals of Operations Research 2007; 154(1): 51-68.
39. Tervonen T, Naci H, van Valkenhoef G, et al. Applying Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment: Choosing among Statins in Primary Prevention. Med Decis Making 2015; 35(7): 859-71.
40. Marsh K, M IJ, Thokala P, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016; 19(2): 125-37.
41. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York; 1980.
42. 褚志鵬. Analytic Hierarchy Process Theory 層級分析法(AHP)理論與實作. 2009. ftp://mail.im.tku.edu.tw/Prof_Shyur/AHP/AHP2009.pdf (accessed May 30 2017).
43. 鄧振源. 多準則決策分析方法與應用: 鼎茂圖書出版股份有限公司; 2012.
44. Margreet Franken. Decision making in drug reimbursement; 2014.
45. 衛生福利部中央健保署. 全民健保20週年叢書系列-杏林暖流(全民健保醫療品質與藥物管理施政紀實); 2015.
46. 全民健康保險新藥收載及核價作業須知. http://www.nhi.gov.tw/Resource/bulletin/3805_%E5%85%A8%E6%B0%91%E5%81%A5%E5%BA%B7%E4%BF%9D%E9%9A%AA%E6%96%B0%E8%97%A5%E6%94%B6%E8%BC%89%E5%8F%8A%E6%A0%B8%E5%83%B9%E4%BD%9C%E6%A5%AD%E9%A0%88%E7%9F%A5.pdf (accessed July 9 2017).
47. 衛生福利部中央健保署. 新藥及新醫材病友意見分享. June 13, 2017. https://www.nhi.gov.tw/PatientShare/PatientShare.aspx (accessed June 16 2017).
48. 衛生福利部中央健保署. 全民健康保險藥物給付項目及支付標準共同擬訂辦法條文. October 3, 2014 2014. https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=748D4A0C0839220C&topn=3FC7D09599D25979 (accessed May 31 2017).
49. 健保署. 健保藥品給付. 2016.
50. 國家醫療科技評估中心. 關於我們-甚麼是醫療科技評估?. 2015. http://nihta.cde.org.tw/About/ (accessed May 31 2017).
51. 財團法人醫藥品查驗中心. 醫藥科技評估Q&A. http://www2.cde.org.tw/FAQ/HTA/Pages/%E9%86%AB%E8%97%A5%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80%E8%A9%95%E4%BC%B0.aspx (accessed May 31 2017).
52. 財團法人醫藥品查驗中心. 醫療科技評估方法學指引. 2014. https://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/HTA_guidelines_Taiwan.pdf (accessed May 30 2017).
53. 衛生福利部中央健保署. 醫療科技評估報告. 2016/12/5 2016. https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=819D77BE465520F6&topn=3FC7D09599D25979 (accessed 6/14 2017).
54. Ferlay J SI, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 2013. http://globocan.iarc.fr (accessed March 19 2017).
55. Favoriti P, Carbone G, Greco M, Pirozzi F, Pirozzi RE, Corcione F. Worldwide burden of colorectal cancer: a review. Updates Surg 2016; 68(1): 7-11.
56. 國家衛生研究院台灣癌症臨床研究合作組織. 大腸癌臨床診療指引. 2010.
57. Kopetz S, Chang GJ, Overman MJ, et al. Improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is associated with adoption of hepatic resection and improved chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(22): 3677-83.
58. Chang YS, Chang SJ, Yeh KT, Lin TH, Chang JG. RAS, BRAF, and TP53 gene mutations in Taiwanese colorectal cancer patients. Onkologie 2013; 36(12): 719-24.
59. Fernández-Medarde A, Santos E. Ras in Cancer and Developmental Diseases. Genes & Cancer 2011; 2(3): 344-58.
60. Chang Y-Y, Lin P-C, Lin H-H, et al. Mutation spectra of RAS gene family in colorectal cancer. The American Journal of Surgery 2016; 212(3): 537-44.e3.
61. 衛生福利部食品藥物管理署. 西藥、醫療器材、含藥化粧品許可證查詢. http://www.fda.gov.tw/MLMS/HList.aspx (accessed May 28 2017).
62. Avastin(R) [package insert]. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland, June 2015. (accessed May 29 2017).
63. Erbitux(R) [package insert]. Merck KGaA, Germany, September 2015. (accessed May 29 2017).
64. Vectibix(R) [package insert]. Amgen Manufacturing Limited, Puerto Rico, March 2015. (accessed May 29 2017).
65. Zaltrap(R) [package insert]. Sanofi-aventis, Germany, April 2015. (accessed May 29 2017).
66. Stivarga(R) [package insert]. Bayer Pharma AG, Germany, April 2015. (accessed May 29 2017).
67. 衛生福利部中央健康保險署. 健保用藥品項查詢. http://www.nhi.gov.tw/query/query1.aspx (accessed May 28 2017).
68. 衛生福利部中央健保署. 藥品給付規定. 2017/6/3 2017. http://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=E70D4F1BD029DC37&topn=3FC7D09599D25979 (accessed June 14 2017).
69. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Bevacizumab, solution for I.V. infusion, 100 mg in 4 mL, 400 mg in 16 mL, Avastin, March 2008. July 18, 2008. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2008-03/pbac-psd-bevacizumab-mar08 (accessed June 15 2017).
70. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Bevacizumab, solution for I.V. infusion, 100 mg in 4 mL, 400 mg in 16 mL, Avastin®, July 2008. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2008-07/pbac-psd-bevacizumab-july08 (accessed June 15 2017).
71. CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Avastin (with capecitabine) for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer - Details. November 13 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr_avastin_capecitabine_mcrc_fn_rec.pdf (accessed June 14 2017).
72. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. January 1 2007. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta118/resources/bevacizumab-and-cetuximab-for-the-treatment-of-metastatic-colorectal-cancer-pdf-82598079597253 (accessed June 14 2017).
73. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Bevacizumab 100mg/4ml and 400mg/16ml solution for intravenous infusion (Avastin®). June 5 2006. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/bevacizumab__Avastin__Resubmissionn_May_06_FINAL_for_website.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
74. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cetuximab, bevacizumab and panitumumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy: Cetuximab (monotherapy or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (in combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy. January 25 2012. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta242/resources/cetuximab-bevacizumab-and-panitumumab-for-the-treatment-of-metastatic-colorectal-cancer-after-firstline-chemotherapy-cetuximab-monotherapy-or-combination-chemotherapy-bevacizumab-in-combination-with--pdf-82600427700421 (accessed June 14 2017).
75. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin and either fluorouracil plus folinic acid or capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. December 15 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta212/resources/bevacizumab-in-combination-with-oxaliplatin-and-either-fluorouracil-plus-folinic-acid-or-capecitabine-for-the-treatment-of-metastatic-colorectal-cancer-pdf-82600246301893 (accessed June 14 2017).
76. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cetuximab and panitumumab for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. March 29 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta439/resources/cetuximab-and-panitumumab-for-previously-untreated-metastatic-colorectal-cancer-pdf-82604732556229 (accessed June 15 2017).
77. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Cetuximab; solution for intravenous (IV) infusion, 100 mg in 20 mL & 500 mg in 100 mL; Erbitux®. March 6, 2015. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2014-11/files/cetuximab-psd-11-2014.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
78. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. NICE (Multiple) Technology Appraisal Guidance No 439-Cetuximab and panitumumab for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. April 6, 2017. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/technologies_and_medicines/mta_resources/appraisal_439.aspx (accessed June 15 2017).
79. CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Erbitux for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer - Details. January 27, 2014. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr-erbitux-mcrc-fn-rec.pdf (accessed June 14 2017).
80. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. CETUXIMAB, solution for I.V. infusion, 100 mg in 20 mL and 500 mg in 100 mL, Erbitux®. October 19, 2010. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2010-07/pbac-psd-Cetuximab-july10 (accessed June 15 2017).
81. CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Vectibix for mCRC – Details. December 8, 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr_panitumumab_vectibix_mcrc_fn_rec.pdf (accessed June 14 2017).
82. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Panitumumab; 100 mg/5 mL injection, 1 x 5 mL vial, 400 mg/20 mL injection, 1 x 20 mL vial; Vectibix®. July 3, 2015. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2015-03/Files/panitumumab-psd-march-2015.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
83. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Panitumumab, concentrate solution for infusion, 100 mg in 5 mL & 400 mg in 20 mL, Vectibix® - March 2013. March 2013. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2013-03/panitumumab (accessed June 15 2017).
84. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Re-Submission: aflibercept 25mg/mL concentrate for solution for infusion (Zaltrap®) February 7 2014. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/advice/aflibercept_Zaltrap_Resubmission_FINAL_February_2014_for_website.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
85. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy for treating metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. March 25 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta307/resources/aflibercept-in-combination-with-irinotecan-and-fluorouracilbased-therapy-for-treating-metastatic-colorectal-cancer-that-has-progressed-following-prior-oxaliplatinbased-chemotherapy-pdf-82602371016133 (accessed June 15 2017).
86. CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Zaltrap for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer - Details. September 23, 2014. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr-zaltrap-mcrc-fn-rec.pdf (accessed June 14 2017).
87. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Aflibercept, solution for IV injection, 100 mg/4 mL and 200 mg/8 mL, Zaltrap® - July 2013. July 2013. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2013-07/aflibercept (accessed June 15 2017).
88. CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Stivarga for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer - Details. December 2, 2013. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr-stivargamcrc-fn-rec.pdf (accessed June 14 2017).
89. CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Stivarga Resubmission for mCRC - Details. September 29, 2015 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pcodr_regorafenib_stivarga_resub_mcrc_fn_rec.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
90. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Regorafenib, tablet, 40 mg, Stivarga®, Bayer Australia Limited. July 2014. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2014-07/regorafenib-psd-07-2014.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
91. National Cancer Institute. FDA Approval for Bevacizumab. December 4, 2014. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/fda-bevacizumab#Anchor-Approva-23287 (accessed June 15 2017).
92. National Cancer Institute. FDA Approval for Cetuximab. July 2, 2013. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/fda-cetuximab (accessed June 15 2017).
93. National Cancer Institute. FDA Approval for Panitumumab. July 3, 2013. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/fda-panitumumab (accessed June 15 2017).
94. National Cancer Institute. FDA Approval for Ziv-Aflibercept. July 3, 2013. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/fda-ziv-aflibercept (accessed June 15 2017).
95. National Cancer Institute. FDA Approval for Regorafenib. July 3, 2013. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/fda-regorafenib#Anchor-MCRC (accessed June 15 2017).
96. European Medicines Agency. Avastin : EPAR - Product Information. February 21, 2017 2009. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000582/WC500029271.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
97. European Medicines Agency. Erbitux : EPAR - Product Information. February 3, 2015 2009. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000558/WC500029119.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
98. European Medicines Agency. Vectibix : EPAR - Product Information. March 9, 2017 2009. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000741/WC500047710.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
99. European Medicines Agency. Zaltrap : EPAR - Product Information. April 20, 2017 2013. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002532/WC500139484.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
100. European Medicines Agency. Stivarga : EPAR - Product Information. February 6, 2017 2013. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002573/WC500149164.pdf (accessed June 15 2017).
101. Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(10): 1065-75.
102. Saltz LB, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(12): 2013-9.
103. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(14): 1408-17.
104. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartmann JT, et al. Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(7): 1535-46.
105. Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J, et al. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(31): 4697-705.
106. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(4): 337-45.
107. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, et al. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(13): 1658-64.
108. Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A, et al. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(31): 4706-13.
109. Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R, et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(28): 3499-506.
110. Li J, Qin S, Xu R, et al. Regorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CONCUR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16(6): 619-29.
111. Cunningham D, Lang I, Marcuello E, et al. Bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(11): 1077-85.
112. Loupakis F, Cremolini C, Masi G, et al. Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 371(17): 1609-18.
113. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Makhson A, et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(5): 663-71.
114. Grothey A, Van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013; 381(9863): 303-12.
115. 衛生福利部國民健康署. 中華民國 101 年癌症登記報告. http://www.hpa.gov.tw/Bhpnet/Web/Stat/Statistics.aspx.July 1, 2017).
116. Base des Médicaments et Informations Tarifaires. June 13, 2017 http://www.codage.ext.cnamts.fr/codif/bdm_it/index.php?p_site=AMELI (accessed June 16 2017).
117. Centre Belge d'Information Pharmacothérapeutique (CBIP). 2017. http://www.cbip.be/ (accessed June 16 2017).
118. Farmaceutiska specialiteter i Sverige (FASS). http://www.fass.se/LIF/home/index.jsp (accessed June 16 2017).
119. Arzneimittel kompendium der schweiz. 2017. http://compendium.ch/ (accessed June 16 2017).
120. NHS Business Services Authority. NHS Prescription Service. 2015. https://apps.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/DMDBrowser/DMDBrowser.do (accessed June 16 2017).
121. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). PBS Downloads. June 1, 2017. http://www.pbs.gov.au/browse/downloads (accessed June 16 2017).
122. Vidal. LISTE DES MÉDICAMENTS PAR NOM COMMERCIAL. 2017. http://www.vidal.fr/recherchemedicament.asp (accessed June 16 2017).
123. 厚生労働省. 薬価基準収載品目リスト及び後発医薬品に関する情報について(平成29年6月16日適用)- 内用薬. June 16, 2017. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/2017/06/dl/tp20170616-01_1.pdf (accessed June 16 2017).
124. 厚生労働省. 薬価基準収載品目リスト及び後発医薬品に関する情報について(平成29年6月16日適用)-注射藥. June 16, 2017. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/2017/06/dl/tp20170616-01_2.pdf (accessed June 16 2017).
125. 衛生福利部中央健保署. 106年匯率. April 10, 2017. https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=BF2D21A4928B1390&topn=3FC7D09599D25979 (accessed June 16 2017).
126. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986; 35(6): 382-5.
127. Waltz CWaRBB. Nursing research: design, statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; 1981.
128. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014; 17(1): 5-14.
129. Xia B, Herbst RS. Immune checkpoint therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: an update. Immunotherapy 2016; 8(3): 279-98.
130. Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2015; 373(2): 123-35.
131. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2015; 373(17): 1627-39.
132. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387(10027): 1540-50.
133. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. June 14 2010. https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf (accessed July 1 2017).
134. Yervoy (R) [package insert].Bristol-Myer Squibb, 2011. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2015/125377s073lbl.pdf (accessed July 2 2017).
135. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (accessed July 6 2017).

論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2022-08-07起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2022-08-07起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw