Cost effectiveness, chemotherapy, and the clinician

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volumn 114, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 597-598

  Griggs, Jennifer J ^a   Sorbero, Melony E S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOCETAXEL; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; BREAST CANCER; CANADA; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; KOREA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAID; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MEDICARE; NOTE; ONCOLOGY; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ETHICS, MEDICAL; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY;

EID: 61449096605     PISSN: 01676806     EISSN: 15737217     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-008-0142-y     Document Type: Note

References (15)

1. HJ Au K Golmohammadi T Younis 2008 Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) for node-positive breast cancer: modeling the downstream effects Breast Cancer Res Treat 10.1007/s10549-008-0034-1
2. SG Lee YG Jee HC Chung 2008 Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy for node positive breast cancer in Korea: docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC) Breast Cancer Res Treat 10.1007/s10549.008-0035-0
3. PA Ubel RA Hirth ME Chernew 2003 What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 163 1637 1641 10.1001/archinte.163.14.1637
4. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB et al (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York
5. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford Medical Publications, New York
6. CC Earle RH Chapman CS Baker 2000 Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology J Clin Oncol 18 3302 3317
7. CM Bell DR Urbach JG Ray 2006 Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review BMJ 332 699 703 10.1136/bmj.38737.607558.80
8. E Nadler B Eckert PJ Neumann 2006 Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value? Oncologist 11 90 95 10.1634/theoncologist.11-2-90
9. D Schrag M Hanger 2007 Medical oncologists' views on communicating with patients about chemotherapy costs: a pilot survey J Clin Oncol 25 233 237 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.2437
10. SR Berry S Hubay H Soibelman 2007 The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in ontario: a qualitative study BMC Health Serv Res 7 193 10.1186/1472-6963-7-193
11. L Snyder C Leffler 2005 Ethics manual: fifth edition Ann Intern Med 142 560 582
12. GC Alexander RM Werner PA Ubel 2004 The costs of denying scarcity Arch Intern Med 164 593 596 10.1001/archinte.164.6.593
13. JL Warren KR Yabroff A Meekins 2008 Evaluation of trends in the cost of initial cancer treatment J Natl Cancer Inst 100 888 897 10.1093/jnci/djn175
14. PJ Neumann SD Sullivan 2006 Economic evaluation in the US: what is the missing link? Pharmacoeconomics 24 1163 1168 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00012
15. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (2008) Report to the congress: reforming the delivery system. MedPac, Washington, DC