The forced adoption of a fast-track appraisal process for a breast cancer treatment in UK

Trastuzumab (Herceptin ®, Roche) is approved in UK for the treatment of the metastatic breast cancer since 2001. As of 2005, concomitantly with the publication of 3 studies that showed it produces a 50% reduction of the recurrence rates of breast cancer, trastuzumab started to be prescribed in the earlt adjuvant treatrnent of this disease. Und June 2006, trastuzumab did not have both: 1) regulatory approval and 2) NICE [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] recommendation for the use in early stages of breast cancer. During the period until June 2006, the trastuzumab use in those patients was not reimbursed and because the cost of trastuzumab is equal with the yearly UK average income, most of patients could not self fund their treatrnent. Before the publication of the final NICE guidance, the new data of trastuzumab in early breast cancer raised enormous patient and professional interest and expectations. A great volume of public and professional pressure was generated to transcend a system by which Primary Care Trusts can reimburse a treatment only after a formal guidance was issued. This paper draw on a case study depicting and analyzing the process by which regulatory approval and NICE recommendations were achieved in a record time and how trastuzumab became a standard treatment on early adjuvant breast cancer. According to the data we gathered in this work we were witnessing one of the fastest processes of adoption of a health care technology since the creation of NICE, in 1999. This study addresses the following research question: How and why does the adoption pattern of trastuzumab differ from the rational decision-making model of the reimbursement process in UK? [Author, p. 4]

To analyse a trace or not? Evaluating the decision-making process in the criminal investigation

In order to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the decision steps in the criminal investigation process, we started by evaluating the decision to analyse a trace and the factors involved in this decision step. This decision step is embedded in the complete criminal investigation process, involving multiple decision and triaging steps. Considering robbery cases occurring in a geographic region during a 2-year-period, we have studied the factors influencing the decision to submit biological traces, directly sampled on the scene of the robbery or on collected objects, for analysis. The factors were categorised into five knowledge dimensions: strategic, immediate, physical, criminal and utility and decision tree analysis was carried out. Factors in each category played a role in the decision to analyse a biological trace. Interestingly, factors involving information available prior to the analysis are of importance, such as the fact that a positive result (a profile suitable for comparison) is already available in the case, or that a suspect has been identified through traditional police work before analysis. One factor that was taken into account, but was not significant, is the matrix of the trace. Hence, the decision to analyse a trace is not influenced by this variable. The decision to analyse a trace first is very complex and many of the tested variables were taken into account. The decisions are often made on a case-by-case basis.