Olaparib: 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
AIFA (Italy), CONITEC (Brazil) and G-BA (Germany), among others, recommended or restricted olaparib, while AWMSG (Wales) did not recommend it.
NYE METODER (Norway) has been easier on olaparib than on its own caseload: it refused 0 of 7 decisive submissions here (0%), against a base rate of 37% across everything it has assessed.
Assessment has run over 11.3 years, from 25 Feb 2015 at TLV (Sweden) to 24 Jun 2026 at DMC (Denmark).
DMC (Denmark) changed its position: not recommended on 10 Apr 2019, restricted by 24 Jun 2026, after a resubmission.
Every one of the eight highest-volume agencies in this archive has a record for olaparib.
Not every gap is a refusal: for olaparib, 2 submissions were never made and 3 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 49 of 114 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 35 distinct indication wordings are recorded for olaparib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
17 of these 114 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
TLV (Sweden) was first to assess olaparib, on 25 Feb 2015; CONITEC (Brazil) did not open a file until 7 Oct 2024 — an unusually long tail of 9.7 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 11 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 11 years in total.
15 of the 15 agencies here assessed olaparib more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 17 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
olaparib has been through 15 of the 18 agencies in this archive — among the most widely assessed molecules on file.
The full ledger for olaparib reads 53 recommended, 21 restricted, 19 not recommended and 8 deferred to NICE, with 13 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 16 Jun 2026 | BRCAm HER2-negative breast cancer, early high risk after neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy | PTAC advice: High | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 10 Jun 2025 | programu lekowego B.148 „Leczenie chorych na raka endometrium (ICD-10: C54) | not recommended | source |
| CIPM (Spain) | 26 Feb 2025 | Indicaciones terapéuticas autorizadas: Cáncer de ovario Lynparza está indicado como monoterapia para el: - tratamiento d… | not financed by the SNS | source |
| NICE (England) | 12 Feb 2025 | NICE TA1040 | terminated appraisal | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 21 Sep 2023 | Lynparza — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
109 further decisions for olaparib, across 15 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 24 Jun 2026 from DMC (Denmark); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 82 further source documents.
Related molecules
- atezolizumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- durvalumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- aflibercept — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- osimertinib — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- venetoclax — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- everolimus — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 114 decisions for olaparib from 15 agencies, 2015 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.