Cetuximab: where the agencies disagree
This page collects every recorded health technology assessment decision for one molecule across the agencies in our archive, and compares them. The comparison is the point: each agency publishes its own verdict, none publishes how that verdict sits against the others.
What the record shows
HAS (France), HIRA (South Korea) and NICE (England) recommended or restricted cetuximab, while CONITEC (Brazil) and PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not recommend it.
CONITEC (Brazil) has been harder on cetuximab than on its own caseload: it refused 6 of 6 decisive submissions here (100%), against a base rate of 44% across everything it has assessed.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 19 years separate the first record, 10 Oct 2005 at SMC (Scotland), from the most recent, 10 Oct 2024 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
SMC (Scotland) changed its position: not recommended on 10 Oct 2005, restricted by 12 Jan 2015, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for cetuximab, 1 submission was never made and 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Against its own class, cetuximab is an outlier: 48% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class L01F average 73%.
The programme is broad: 13 distinct indication wordings are recorded for cetuximab by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
6 of these 34 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
SMC (Scotland) was first to assess cetuximab, on 10 Oct 2005; HIRA (South Korea) did not open a file until 2 May 2024 — an unusually long tail of 18.6 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 8 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 15 years in total.
7 of the 9 agencies here assessed cetuximab more than once, PHARMAC (New Zealand) most often at 6 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
9 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for cetuximab.
The full ledger for cetuximab reads 13 not recommended, 9 recommended, 3 restricted and 3 superseded, with 6 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 10 Oct 2024 | Colorectal cancer, metastatic, RAS wild-type, left-sided, second-line | funding application decided · decision reached | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2024 | Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) | Recommended | source |
| HIRA (South Korea) | 2 May 2024 | 전이성 직결장암 | reimbursable only at the evaluated price (risk-share extension) | source |
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 25 Jan 2018 | Tratamento do câncer colorretal metastático RAS selvagem com doença limitada ao fígado em primeira linha | not incorporated | source |
| NICE (England) | 31 Aug 2017 | NICE TA473 | recommended | source |
29 further decisions for cetuximab, across 8 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 16 further source documents.
Related molecules
- panitumumab — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- fruquintinib — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- pembrolizumab — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- nivolumab — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- daratumumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- rituximab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 34 decisions for cetuximab from 9 agencies, 2005 to 2024. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.