How much is the life of a cancer patient worth? A pharmaco-economic perspective

Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 249-256

  Simoens, S ^a   Dooms, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

biotechnology medicine; cancer; cost effectiveness; economic evaluation; orphan medicine; pharmaco economics

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CETUXIMAB; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; FLUOROURACIL; IMATINIB; METHOTREXATE; ORPHAN DRUG; RALOXIFENE; RECOMBINANT GRANULOCYTE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; SUNITINIB; TRASTUZUMAB; TUMOR MARKER;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; CARDIOTOXICITY; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOR; HEAD AND NECK CARCINOMA; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RISK SHARING, FINANCIAL; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79955747463     PISSN: 02694727     EISSN: 13652710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2010.01181.x     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Perleth M, Jakubowski E, Busse R, (2001) What is 'best practice' in health care? State of the art and perspectives in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the European health care systems. Health Policy, 56, 235-250. (Pubitemid 32499231)
2. Sullivan SD, Watkins J, Sweet B, Ramsey SD, (2009) Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States. Value in Health, 12 (Suppl. 2), S39-S44.
3. Centre for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health (2009) The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Available at: (accessed 7 September 2009).
4. Bach PB, (2009) Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 626-633.
5. Raftery J, (2006) Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005. British Medical Journal, 332, 1266-1268. (Pubitemid 44365421)
6. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ, (2004) National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. British Medical Journal, 329 (7459), 224.
7. Littlejohns P, Garner S, Doyle N, Macbeth F, Barnett D, Longson C, (2009) 10 years of NICE: still growing and still controversial. The Lancet Oncology, 10, 417-424.
8. Richards M, (2004) Variations in usage of cancer medicines approved by NICE: report of the review undertaken by the National Cancer Director. London: Department of Health.
9. Cook JP, Vernon JA, Manning R, (2008) Pharmaceutical risk-sharing agreements. Pharmacoeconomics, 26, 551-556. (Pubitemid 351871550)
10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2007) Bortezomib monotherapy for relapsed multiple myeloma. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
11. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008) Erlotinib for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
12. Hughes B, (2007) Novel risk-sharing scheme puts the spotlight on biomarkers. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 6, 945. (Pubitemid 350201782)
13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2009) Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
14. Timoney A, Walker A, Paterson K, Bennie M, McIver L, Webb D, (2006) The Scottish Medicine Consortium-are oncology medicines different? Third Health Technology Assessment International Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
15. IMS Health. (2007) IMS lifecycle R&D focus. London: IMS Health.
16. Simon F, (2006) Market access for biopharmaceuticals: new challenges. Health Affairs, 25, 1363-1370. (Pubitemid 44500616)
17. IMS Health. (2006) IMS MIDAS Therapy forecaster, market insights. London: IMS Health.
18. Cohen M, Morrow T, Penna P, (2006) Managing the expanded use of biologics across therapeutic areas: an example from b-cell targeted therapies. American Journal of Managed Care, 12, S24-S37.
19. Schneider CK, Schaffner-Dallmann G, (2008) Typical pitfalls in applications for marketing authorization of biotechnological products in Europe. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 7, 893-899.
20. Younis T, Skedgel C, (2008) Is trastuzumab a cost-effective treatment for breast cancer? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 8, 433-442.
21. Simoens S, (2008) Trastuzumab in early-stage breast cancer: the question of treatment timing. PharmacoEconomics, 26, 807-809.
22. Food and Drug Administration. (1998) Trastuzumab, genentech herceptin approval letter. Available at: (accessed 17 November 2009).
23. Ramsey S, Liu Z, Boer R, et al. (2009) Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Value in Health, 12, 217-225.
24. Danzon PM, Furukawa MF, (2006) Prices and availability of biopharmaceuticals: an international comparison. Health Affairs, 25, 1353-1362. (Pubitemid 44497636)
25. Denis A, Simoens S, Fostier C, Mergaert L, Cleemput I, (2009) Health technology assessment policy governing orphan diseases and orphan medicines. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre.
26. European Commission. (2000) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities L 18/1.
27. Henkel J, (1999) Orphan medicine law matures into medical mainstay. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Medicine Administration. Available at: (Accessed 8 September 2009).
28. Office of Orphan Products Development. (2009) Database for orphan designated and or approved products. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Medicine Administration. Available at: (Accessed 11 September 2009).
29. Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, Karakiewicz P, Martin D, Tugwell P, MacLeod S, (2009) Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of medicines for rare diseases-a case study in oncology. Canadian Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 16, e273-e281.
30. Clarke J, (2006) Is the current approach to reviewing new medicines condemning the victims of rare diseases to death? A call for a national orphan medicine review policy. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174, 189-190. (Pubitemid 43166273)
31. Tunis SR, Pearson SD, (2006) Coverage options for promising technologies: medicare's 'coverage with evidence development'. Health Affairs, 25, 1218-1230. (Pubitemid 44497620)
32. Owen A, Sprinks J, Meehan A, et al. (2008) A new model to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of orphan and highly specialised medicines following listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: the Bosentan Patient Registry. Journal of Medical Economics, 11, 235-243.