ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2019
Relative value assessment: characterizing the benefit of oncology therapies through diverse survival metrics from a US perspective.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Patient-Centered Approach to Benefit-Risk Characterization Using Number Needed to Benefit and Number Needed to Harm: Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe introduction of innovative, high-cost oncology treatments, coupled with mounting budgetary pressures, necessitates value trade-offs across cancer types. Defining value is critical to informing decision-making. A cost-value analysis tool was used to assess relative clinical value from a US perspective using multiple outcome metrics for a variety of metastatic cancers.
methodsLiterature published (January 1, 2000-August 31, 2016) was reviewed to identify outcome metrics for approved treatments for metastatic cancers. Data were extracted or derived for median and mean overall survival (OS), landmark survival rates, and other survival metrics, and compared across treatments vs their respective trial comparators, with and without considering costs.
resultsReported survival metrics varied by agent within cancer type. For treatment of prostate cancer, abiraterone yielded the highest improvement in 1-year survival rate (13.7%, previously treated), whereas enzalutamide yielded the highest median OS improvement (4.8 months, previously treated) and sipuleucel-T, the highest mean OS improvement (3.6 months, previously untreated) vs their respective trial comparators. For treatment of non-small cell lung cancer vs their respective trial comparators, nivolumab yielded the highest improvement in mean OS (11.9 months) and 3-year survival rate (12.6%), each in previously treated squamous disease, whereas afatinib yielded the highest median OS improvement (4.1 months, previously untreated
conclusionsAlthough median OS is the traditional gold standard oncology efficacy metric, it fails to capture long-term survival benefits-the ultimate goal of cancer treatment-offered by new treatment modalities. Diverse metrics are needed for comprehensive value assessments of cancer therapies.
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.