ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2024
Association between oral targeted cancer drug net health benefit, uptake, and spending.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The utility of value frameworks in cost communications: making them real for patients.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTargeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide deidentified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication.
resultsWe included 8524 patients with incident claims for 8 oral TCDs with 9 first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (interquartile range [IQR] = $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10 118.79 (IQR = $6365.95-$10 600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% confidence interval = $1050.27 to $1116.84, P < .01 for null hypothesis H0 = $0).
conclusionLow-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.
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.