Health technology assessment bodies require comparative evidence that your clinical trials alone cannot provide. When head to head data does not exist, you need rigorous indirect comparisons. When your single arm trial lacks a control group, you need external comparators that regulators will accept.

Oncology evidence synthesis is not the same as other therapeutic areas. Cancer endpoints present unique methodological challenges. Immature survival data requires extrapolation. Crossover confounds overall survival comparisons. Heterogeneous patient populations limit network connectivity. Generic evidence synthesis vendors miss these nuances.

We specialize exclusively in oncology evidence synthesis. Our systematic reviews capture the clinical context that informs meaningful comparisons. Our network meta analyses address the methodological challenges specific to cancer endpoints. Our synthetic control arms meet the evidentiary standards regulators expect for oncology indications.

What We Offer

Systematic Literature Reviews

PRISMA compliant systematic reviews for oncology drug development. We design search strategies that capture relevant evidence, screen and extract data with clinical precision, and assess risk of bias using Cochrane and Newcastle Ottawa frameworks. Reviews built for HTA submission appendices and regulatory briefing documents.

Network Meta Analysis

Bayesian and frequentist NMAs for oncology indications with complex evidence networks. We handle disconnected networks, adjust for effect modifiers, and address the survival analysis challenges common in cancer trials. NICE DSU compliant methods with probabilistic sensitivity analyses for cost effectiveness modeling.

Synthetic Control Arms

External control arms using real world data for single arm oncology trials. Propensity score matching, inverse probability weighting, and quantitative bias analysis that meet FDA and EMA expectations. Particularly valuable for rare cancers and accelerated approval pathways where randomized controls are not feasible.

Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparisons

Individual patient data based comparisons when aggregate NMA methods are insufficient. MAIC and simulated treatment comparison analyses that adjust for cross trial differences in patient populations. Methods aligned with NICE and ICER technical specifications.

Survival Extrapolation and HEOR Modeling

Parametric survival modeling for immature oncology data. Flexible models including mixture cure, spline based, and piecewise approaches. Extrapolations that inform partitioned survival models and cost effectiveness analyses for HTA submissions.

Rapid Evidence Reviews

Accelerated literature reviews for competitive intelligence, clinical development planning, and investor communications. Structured evidence summaries delivered in days rather than months. Targeted reviews that answer specific strategic questions without full systematic review scope.

How We Work

1. Scoping and Protocol

We develop a PROSPERO registered protocol defining your PICO criteria, search strategy, and analytical approach. Clear scope prevents downstream delays and supports HTA submission requirements.

2. Search and Screening

Comprehensive database searches with clinical librarian support. Dual independent screening with oncologist input on borderline inclusions. Living search updates available for ongoing submissions.

3. Analysis and Reporting

Network meta analyses, indirect comparisons, or evidence synthesis deliverables formatted for your target HTA body. Interactive results with sensitivity analyses addressing key uncertainty drivers.

4. Submission Support

We respond to HTA technical engagement questions, update analyses for new comparator data, and defend methodological choices through the assessment process.