Utility of Cancer Value Frameworks for Patients, Payers, and Physicians

This viewpoint, authored by Dr. Chandra, Dr. Shafrin, and Dr. Dhawan, describes the differences between various cancer value frameworks and provides recommendations for improving them for clinicians, patients, and payers. In recent years, novel cancer therapies have improved the expected survival of patients but have also increased treatment costs. As a result of these increases, patients are concerned about increasing out-of-pocket costs, clinicians must assess whether “do no harm” includes patient financial harm, and payers want to know if novel therapies are worth the cost.

 
 
  • Authors: A Chandra, J Shafrin, and R Dhawan
  • Publication Year: 2016
  • Source: JAMA
 
 
Related Research

Peer-Reviewed Research 5/26/17

Conducting Indirect-Treatment-Comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices—Part 2

Evidence-based health care decision making requires comparison of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best treatment(s).

READ MORE

Peer-Reviewed Research 5/26/17

Meta-regression models to address heterogeneity and inconsistency in network meta-analysis of survival outcomes

Recently, network meta-analysis of survival data with a multidimensional treatment effect was introduced. With these models the hazard ratio is not assumed to be constant over time, thereby reducing the possibility of violating transitivity in indirect comparisons. However, bias is still present if there are systematic differences in treatment effect modifiers across comparisons. 

READ MORE