Editorials: Challenges and opportunities for use of cost-effectiveness analysis

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 101, Issue 17, 2009, Pages 1161-1163

  Yabroff, K Robin ^a   Schrag, Deborah ^b  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CETUXIMAB; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; KRAS PROTEIN, HUMAN; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; ONCOPROTEIN; RAS PROTEIN; TUMOR MARKER;

CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; EDITORIAL; GENE MUTATION; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICARE; ONCOGENE K RAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; CANADA; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE COST; MUTATION; NOTE; PATIENT SELECTION; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CANADA; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MUTATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RAS PROTEINS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 69949159390     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp258     Document Type: Editorial

References (21)

1. Schrag D. The price tag on progress-chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(4):317-319.
2. Fojo T, Grady C. How much is life worth: cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(15):1044-1048.
3. Meropol NJ, Schulman KA. Cost of cancer care: issues and implications. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(2):180-186.
4. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17): 1757-1765.
5. Allegra CJ, jessup JM, Sommerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2091-2096.
6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: colon cancer. 2009. www.nccn.org. Accessed July 2, 2009.
7. Saltz LB. Personalized medicine arrives for patients with colorectal cancer: deal with it. Am J Hematol Oncol. March 2009. www.ajho.com. Accessed July 22, 2009.
8. Mittmann N, Au H-J, Tu D, et al. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: economic evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp232. Accessed on July 31, 2009.
9. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
10. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(2):96-104.
11. Grosse SD, Teutsch SM, Haddix AC. Lessons from cost-effectiveness research for United States public health policy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:365-391.
12. Bach PB. Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):626-633.
13. Elkin EB, Weinstein MC, Winer EP, Kuntz KM, Schnitt SJ. Weeks JC. HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(5):863.
14. Drummond MF, Mason AR. European perspective on the costs and costeffectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(2):191-195.
15. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. 2009. http://www.nice.org. uk/nicemedia/pdf/TA118Guidance.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2009.
16. Raftery J. NICE and the challenge of cancer drugs. BMJ. 2009; 338:b67;10.1136/bmj.b67
17. McFarlane J, Riggins J, Smith TJ. SPIKES: a six-step protocol for delivering bad news about the cost of medical care. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 25(25):4200-4204.
18. Meropol NJ, Schrag D, Smith TJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27.
19. Nadler E, Eckert B, Neumann Pj. Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value? Oncologist. 2006;11(2):90-95.
20. Neumann P, Berry SR, Nadler E, et al. A survey of U.S. and Canadian oncologists' attitudes toward the cost, cost-effectiveness (CE), and reimbursement of cancer drugs [abstract 9502], J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27:15s (suppl; abstr 9502).
21. Schrag D, Hanger M. Medical oncologists' views on communicating with patients about chemotherapy costs: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(2):233-237.