ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2021
Should We Consider Value Frameworks for Cancer Drugs as Oncology's Landscape Evolves?; from an Oncologist Perspective in Korea.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs the role of immunotherapies and personalized medicine grow, cancer patients have faced many choices in treatments and have suffered financial toxicity. These challenges brought the need for the value framework (VF) to guide treatment decision making.
methodsA survey was taken to 102 oncologists about perception for VF. They were asked about priorities among several considerations when they prescribe cancer drugs. Their views on the need for development and potential implications of VF in Korea were assessed, also.
resultsThe survey shows that 90% of the respondents choose clinical efficacy as the most important value in cancer drugs selection, and the cost of drug was more weighted value in immune checkpoint inhibitors (13.7%). Approximately half (53.9%) answered that they were aware of the existing VFs. Over 90% of respondents agreed with the need for development of a VF for cancer drugs based on Korean healthcare system and further usefulness for decisions about reimbursement issues. Seventy-one percent answered that two representative VFs (American Society Clinical Oncology-VF and European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale) should be reflected in value measurement of cancer drugs in Korea.
conclusionThe Korean oncologists recognized the necessity for the clinical application of VF. Further discussion between the stakeholders should be followed to alleviate the financial burden through the value-based decision making of cancer drugs.
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.