After completing this course, the reader will be able to:1. Describe how academic oncologists view the costs of new treatments in their treatment recommendations.
AbstractBackground. Substantial debate centers on the high cost and relative value of new cancer therapies. Oncologists play a pivotal role in treatment decisions, yet it is unclear whether they perceive high-cost new treatments to offer good value or how therapeutic costs factor into their treatment recommendations.Methods. We surveyed 139 academic medical oncologists at two academic hospitals in Boston. We asked respondents to provide estimates for the cost and effectiveness of bevacizumab and whether they believed the treatment offered "good value." We also asked respondents to judge how large a gain in life expectancy would justify a hypothetical cancer drug that costs $70,000 a year. Using this information, we calculated implied costeffectiveness thresholds. Finally, we explored respondents' views on the role of cost in treatment decisions.Results. Ninety academic oncologists (65%) completed the survey. Seventy-eight percent stated
After completing this course, the reader will be able to: 1. Describe how academic oncologists view the costs of new treatments in their treatment recommendations. 2. Discuss academic oncologists' perceptions of the cost and benefit of one new treatment in light of published results. 3. Describe how academic oncologists view the cost-effectiveness of new treatments relative to previously accepted standards. Abstract Background. Substantial debate centers on the high cost and relative value of new cancer therapies. Oncologists play a pivotal role in treatment decisions, yet it is unclear whether they perceive high-cost new treatments to offer good value or how therapeutic costs factor into their treatment recommendations. Methods. We surveyed 139 academic medical oncol-ogists at two academic hospitals in Boston. We asked respondents to provide estimates for the cost and effectiveness of bevacizumab and whether they believed the treatment offered "good value." We also asked respondents to judge how large a gain in life expectancy would justify a hypothetical cancer drug that costs $70,000 a year. Using this information, we calculated implied cost-effectiveness thresholds. Finally, we explored respon-dents' views on the role of cost in treatment decisions. Results. Ninety academic oncologists (65%) completed the survey. Seventy-eight percent stated
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.