ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uniting education, research, healthcare, and society to advance women's heart health.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2024Article
- Patient preferences do matter: a discrete choice experiment conducted with breast cancer patients in six European countries, with latent class analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Impact of cetuximab plus cisplatin alone and cetuximab plus cisplatin and paclitaxel regimen on humanistic outcome in head and neck cancer.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2023Observational
- Health-related quality of life in cancer immunotherapy: a systematic perspective, using causal loop diagrams.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- The emerging role of real-world data in advanced breast cancer therapy: Recommendations for collaborative decision-making.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Article
- Considerations for the Utility of Real-World Evidence Beyond Trial Data in Advanced NSCLC: The Case of Frontline Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.Cancer management and research · 2022Article
- Impact of clinical pharmacist services on quality adjusted life years in head and neck cancer patients.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- The Impasse on Overall Survival in Oncology Reimbursement Decision-Making: How Can We Resolve This?Cancer management and research · 2021Article
- Navigating Ethical Practices in the Era of High Cost Hematology.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2020Review
- Increased survival time or better quality of life? Trade-off between benefits and adverse events in the systemic treatment of cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Article
- Value-based pricing: Toward achieving a balance between individual and population gains in health benefits.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Eliciting stakeholder preferences for patient-centered research.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Perspectives to mitigate payer uncertainty in health technology assessment of novel oncology drugs.Journal of market access & health policy · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib plus Letrozole Versus Palbociclib plus Letrozole and Letrozole Monotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A U.S. Payer Perspective.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Article
- Perceptions of Oncologists, Healthcare Policy Makers, Patients and the General Population on the Value of Pharmaceutical Treatments in Oncology.Advances in therapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn oncology, establishing the value of new cancer treatments is challenging. A clear definition of the different perspectives regarding the drivers of innovation in oncology is required to enable new cancer treatments to be properly rewarded for the value they create. The aim of this study was to analyze the views of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population regarding the value of new cancer treatments.
methodsAn exploratory and qualitative study was conducted through structured interviews to assess participants' attitudes toward cost and outcomes of cancer drugs. First, the participants were asked to indicate the minimum survival benefit that a new treatment should have to be funded by the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Second, the participants were requested to state the highest cost that the NHS could afford for a medication that increases a patient's quality of life (QoL) by twofold with no changes in survival. The responses were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsThe minimum improvement in patient survival means that justified inclusions into the NHS were 5.7, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.4 months, which implied different ICERs for oncologists (€106,000/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), patients (€73,520/QALY), the general population (€66,074/QALY), and health care policy makers (€57,471/QALY), respectively. The costs stated in the QoL-enhancing scenario were €33,167, €30,200, €26,000, and €17,040, which resulted in ICERs of €82,917/QALY for patients, €75,500/QALY for the general population, €65,000/QALY for oncologists, and €42,600/QALY for health care policy makers, respectively.
conclusionAll estimated ICER values were higher than the thresholds previously described in the literature. Oncologists most valued gains in survival, whereas patients assigned a higher monetary value to treatments that enhanced QoL. Health care policy makers were less likely to pay more for therapeutic improvements compared to the remaining participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.