Comparing cost-effectiveness analyses for the clinical oncology setting: the example of the Gynecologic Oncology Group 111 trial.

Abstract

For the practicing oncologist, balancing quality of care with cost containment has become an unavoidable challenge. The development of new technologies, increased patient awareness, growth of managed care, and aging of our population represent conflicting interests in this endeavor. Medical literature has recently been inundated with economic analyses in an effort to approach some of these difficult questions, but often times it is difficult to see how this research applies to any particular oncologist's practice. This article identifies many of the key issues raised in the critical evaluation of cost-effectiveness analyses as they relate to the practicing oncologist. We offer suggestions on the interpretation of these studies to the clinical setting, using the recently published Journal of Clinical Oncology articles on cost-effectiveness analyses of paclitaxel-cisplatin as first-line therapy for ovarian cancer as examples.

• Authors: C L Bennett, T J Stinson
• Journal: Cancer investigation (Cancer Invest) Vol. 18 Issue 3 Pg. 261-8 ( 2000) ISSN: 0735-7907 [Print] England
• PMID: 10754993 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Chemical References

• Paclitaxel
• Cisplatin

Topics

• Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols (economics, therapeutic use)
• Cisplatin (economics, therapeutic use)
• Clinical Trials as Topic
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Decision Making
• Female
• Genital Neoplasms, Female (drug therapy, economics)
• Health Care Costs (statistics & numerical data)
• Health Policy (economics)
• Humans
• Medical Oncology (economics)
• Ovarian Neoplasms (drug therapy, economics)
• Paclitaxel (economics, therapeutic use)
• Policy Making
• Research Design