The Ends Justify the Mean: Outcome Measures for Estimating the Value of New Cancer Therapies

Davies, Ann D. M.; Briggs, Andrew; Schneider, John R.; Levy, Adrian R.; Ebeid, Omar; Wagner, Samuel; Kotapati, Srividya; Ramsey, Scott D.

doi:10.1016/j.ehrm.2012.01.001

Cited by 47 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…population by assuming parametric models for either the whole curve or the tail of the curve [11]. We considered an alternative approach and modeled this population as a mixture population of cured and noncured patients, using the model in Equation 1.…”

Section: Ipi Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for Cured Patients in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Ipi Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for Cured Patients in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13 In a recent assessment by the Swedish TLV, the survival benefit was estimated to be around 13 months, thus generating a cost per life year gained of around $100,000, and a cost per QALY of $140,000.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer vaccines and immunotherapeutics

Wilking

2012

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One obvious problem is that it is seldom possible to base an economic evaluation directly on the results from a clinical trial. Most clinical trials provide information on gains in median survival, whereas an economic evaluation needs an estimate of the gain in mean survival (20). Even more problems occur when improvements in survival in economic evaluations must be estimated from data on outcome in terms of progression or other surrogate parameters (21).…”

Section: Methodological Aspects In Economic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology Assessment for New Oncology Drugs

Bengt

2013

Clinical Cancer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health technology assessment (HTA) has become the key health policy instrument for managing the introduction and use of new oncology drugs in Europe. While the methodology of technology assessment, including calculations of cost-effectiveness, is applicable in principle also to oncology, the implementation in practice has its specific problems and consequences. Most of them are linked to the specific need to do the assessment early in the development, with limited data on outcome in clinical practice. Technology assessments ask for estimates of gains in mean survival, whereas trials are powered to study differences in progression-free or overall median survival. The development of targeted therapies and personalized cancer medicine offers opportunities but also increases the complexity of the assessment. Joint assessment of a diagnostic and a new treatment increases the number intervention strategies that must be considered, and thus the need for data. The translation from efficacy in trials to relative effectiveness in clinical practice must also be considered. The close link between pricing of new oncology drugs and their cost-effectiveness makes the use of technology assessment for policy decisions complicated for all stakeholders involved. But without an obvious alternative that is better, the likely future is that HTA will play an increasing role in informing policy decisions aimed at evidence-based cancer care.

show abstract

The Ends Justify the Mean: Outcome Measures for Estimating the Value of New Cancer Therapies

Cited by 47 publications

References 26 publications

Accounting for Cured Patients in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Accounting for Cured Patients in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancer vaccines and immunotherapeutics

Technology Assessment for New Oncology Drugs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About