A REVIEW OF SACT DATA USED IN NICE TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS
Author(s)
Chetan Mistry, MSc1, Oliver Owens, BSc1, James Gould, MChem1, Sabine Gaugris, MSc1, Jamshaed Siddiqui, MMath2.
1Acumetis, London, United Kingdom, 2Jazz Pharmaceuticals, London, United Kingdom.
1Acumetis, London, United Kingdom, 2Jazz Pharmaceuticals, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset across National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals.
METHODS: A targeted review of NICE technology appraisals completed between April 2012 (commencement of SACT data collection) and February 2026 was conducted to identify appraisals mentioning ‘SACT’. For each identified appraisal, documents including Company submissions, Evidence Assessment Group reports and NICE Committee guidance were reviewed. Information on how SACT data were used throughout the appraisals and whether they were accepted by the NICE Committee were extracted.
RESULTS: Sixty‑eight appraisals were identified. SACT data contributed to Committee decision making in 43 appraisals; its use was fully accepted in 26, partially accepted in 10 and rejected in 7. Across included appraisals, the most frequent indications where SACT data was used were blood and bone marrow cancers (n=21), lung cancer (n=13) and ovarian cancer (n=6). SACT data were mostly used to characterise real‑world treatment patterns and subsequent therapies in NHS clinical practice (n=20), assess the generalisability of trial populations (n=15), and validate overall survival outcomes (n=15). The NICE Committee preferred SACT data in cases where the dataset was large, mature, and representative of NHS clinical practice, as this supported more robust modelling of survival extrapolations, informed baseline characteristics and, in some cases, supported application of severity modifiers. SACT data were occasionally used to model the comparator arm in indirect treatment comparisons when trial data were limited, although clinical trials remained the preferred source for relative treatment effects. In cases where SACT data was rejected, reasons were immature follow-up, small sample sizes, outcome uncertainty, missing outcomes, or poor alignment with the decision problem.
CONCLUSIONS: When robust and aligned with the decision problem, SACT data were influential in NICE appraisals as a source of real‑world evidence to support NICE Committee decision making.
METHODS: A targeted review of NICE technology appraisals completed between April 2012 (commencement of SACT data collection) and February 2026 was conducted to identify appraisals mentioning ‘SACT’. For each identified appraisal, documents including Company submissions, Evidence Assessment Group reports and NICE Committee guidance were reviewed. Information on how SACT data were used throughout the appraisals and whether they were accepted by the NICE Committee were extracted.
RESULTS: Sixty‑eight appraisals were identified. SACT data contributed to Committee decision making in 43 appraisals; its use was fully accepted in 26, partially accepted in 10 and rejected in 7. Across included appraisals, the most frequent indications where SACT data was used were blood and bone marrow cancers (n=21), lung cancer (n=13) and ovarian cancer (n=6). SACT data were mostly used to characterise real‑world treatment patterns and subsequent therapies in NHS clinical practice (n=20), assess the generalisability of trial populations (n=15), and validate overall survival outcomes (n=15). The NICE Committee preferred SACT data in cases where the dataset was large, mature, and representative of NHS clinical practice, as this supported more robust modelling of survival extrapolations, informed baseline characteristics and, in some cases, supported application of severity modifiers. SACT data were occasionally used to model the comparator arm in indirect treatment comparisons when trial data were limited, although clinical trials remained the preferred source for relative treatment effects. In cases where SACT data was rejected, reasons were immature follow-up, small sample sizes, outcome uncertainty, missing outcomes, or poor alignment with the decision problem.
CONCLUSIONS: When robust and aligned with the decision problem, SACT data were influential in NICE appraisals as a source of real‑world evidence to support NICE Committee decision making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
HTA99
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
Oncology