This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the course for this article: Do Oncologists Believe New Cancer Drugs Offer Good Value? eLetters: Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nadler, E. Articles by Neumann, P. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nadler, E. Articles by Neumann, P. J.

Commentary

Do Oncologists Believe New Cancer Drugs Offer Good Value?

^a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; ^b Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Key Words. Health policy • Cost-benefit analysis • Chemotherapy • Health care economic

Correspondence: Eric Nadler, M.D., M.P.P., Sammons Center, Baylor University Medical Center, 3535 Worth Street, Dallas, Texas 75246, USA. Telephone: 214-370-1000; Fax: 214-820-8844; e-mail: Enadler2000{at}mac.com

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 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 cost-effectiveness 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 that patients should have access to "effective" care regardless of cost. Implied cost-effectiveness thresholds, derived from the bevacizumab and hypothetical scenarios, averaged roughly $300,000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Only 25% of oncologists felt that bevacizumab offered "good value."

Conclusions. A majority of academic oncologists stated that cost does not influence their clinical practice, nor should it limit access to "effective" care. Yet respondents did not consider all effective drugs to be of good value. Implied cost-effectiveness thresholds were $300,000/QALY—a value higher than the $50,000 standard often cited. A subset of oncologists were sensitive to cost, believing it should factor into clinical decisions. These findings reflect the ongoing controversies within the medical community as expensive new therapies enter the system.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Gee, R. Upadhyay, H. Bergquist, H. Alencar, F. Reynolds, M. Maricevich, R. Weissleder, L. Josephson, and U. Mahmood Human Breast Cancer Tumor Models: Molecular Imaging of Drug Susceptibility and Dosing during HER2/neu-targeted Therapy Radiology, September 1, 2008; 248(3): 925 - 935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y.-C. T. Shih and M. T. Halpern Economic Evaluations of Medical Care Interventions for Cancer Patients: How, Why, and What Does it Mean? CA Cancer J Clin, July 1, 2008; 58(4): 231 - 244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Sarkar, D. Chakroborty, U. R. Chowdhury, P. S. Dasgupta, and S. Basu Dopamine Increases the Efficacy of Anticancer Drugs in Breast and Colon Cancer Preclinical Models Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2008; 14(8): 2502 - 2510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. D. Ramsey How Should We Pay the Piper When He's Calling the Tune? On the Long-Term Affordability of Cancer Care in the United States J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 175 - 179. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Sulmasy Cancer Care, Money, and the Value of Life: Whose Justice? Which Rationality? J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 217 - 222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. P. Weinfurt Value of High-Cost Cancer Care: A Behavioral Science Perspective J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 223 - 227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Schrag and M. Hanger Medical Oncologists' Views on Communicating With Patients About Chemotherapy Costs: A Pilot Survey J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 233 - 237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Watkins, S. R. Choudhury, E. Wong, and S. D. Sullivan Managing Biotechnology In A Network-Model Health Plan: A U.S. Private Payer Perspective Health Aff., September 1, 2006; 25(5): 1347 - 1352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Weissleder Molecular imaging in cancer. Science, May 26, 2006; 312(5777): 1168 - 1171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]