ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 2.0 (ESMO-MCBS v2.0)

Background: The ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies, with planned updates based upon recognition of new needs and shortcomings. This paper describes the development of ESMO-MCBS v2.0. Methodology: The revision process incorporates nine steps: (i) review of critiques and suggestions and identification of problems in the application of ESMO-MCBS v1.1; (ii) identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; (iii) drafting solutions addressing identified shortcomings; (iv) field-testing of solutions; (v) preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and ESMO Guidelines Committee; (vi) amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; (vii) near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group; (viii) final amendments; (ix) final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board. Results: Seventeen issues for revision or amendment were considered, and 13 amendments were formulated to address identified shortcomings. In the curative setting, studies evaluated based on disease-free survival now credit improved time without treatment or disease even when overall survival is not significantly improved, and studies with small absolute gain in disease-free survival are credited more conservatively. Additionally, acute and persistent toxicity annotations are added. In the non-curative setting, the approach to crediting a difference in the tail of overall survival and progression-free survival curves is more statistically valid, and the toxicity evaluation has been revised. In peer review all amendments were found to be either reasonable or mostly reasonable. The amendments changed the scoring of 85/353 of evaluated studies. Conclusions: The amendments incorporated into ESMO-MCBS v2.0 change the scores of 13.6% of evaluated studies (10.5% downgraded, 3.1% upgraded) and add toxicity annotations to 45.5% of the studies in the curative setting, and improve its discriminatory capacity and utility.