Cost-Effectiveness Studies in Oncology

  • Pedro AguiarJr.
  • Carmelia Maria Noia Barreto
  • Brittany L. Bychkovsky
  • Gilberto de Lima LopesJr.


The number of new drugs approved for cancer treatment is increasing every year. Several factors, such as development costs and commercial issues, make the price of new drugs higher than the price of previously launched drugs. Moreover, expenses in cancer treatment have increased more than inflation and household incomes. Consequently, there is a risk of cancer treatment becoming unsustainable in society. Therefore, cost-effectiveness analyses are very important to help physicians and policy makers to choose the best treatment for the individual who will benefit most. Economic studies involve a comparison of the costs and benefits of alternative treatment options. Cost-effectiveness studies must include a clear specification of the research question. In addition, cost-effectiveness studies must be transparent and reproducible. Physicians need to be able to understand and critically assess the quality of a pharmacoeconomic study. In this review, we will discuss how the cost of cancer care can be studied and how the data can be applied in oncology to guide health policy decisions.


Cost-effectiveness Pharmacoeconomics Health technology assessment 


  1. 1.
    Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M, et al. Cancer statistics review, 1975–2013. National Cancer Institute. Published 2016. Accessed 10 July 2017.
  2. 2.
    IARC. Fact Sheets by population. Accessed 27 July 2016.
  3. 3.
    American Cancer Society. The global economic cost of cancer 2010:12. Accessed 12 Sept 2016.
  4. 4.
    Savage P, Mahmoud S. Development and economic trends in cancer therapeutic drugs: a 5-year update 2010–2014. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(6):1037–41. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brazilian Court of Auditors. National Policies for Cancer Care. 2011:132.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ward E, Halpern M, Schrag N, et al. Association of insurance with cancer care utilization and outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(1):9–31. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Provenzale D, Lipscomb J. Cost-effectiveness: definitions and use in the gastroenterology literature. Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;91(8):1488–93. Accessed 21 Mar 2017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Earle CC, Coyle D, Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness analysis in oncology. Ann Oncol. 1998;9(5):475–82. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gudex C, Kind P. The Qaly tool kit. New York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(4):559–75. Accessed 21 Mar 2017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, Bhalla S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:84. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Simes RJ, Glasziou P, Coates AS. Costs and benefits of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a quality-adjusted survival analysis. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7(1):36–44. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jang RW, Le Maître A, Ding K, et al. Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4268–73. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weltens C, Kesteloot K, Vandevelde G, Van den Bogaert W. Comparison of plastic and Orfit® masks for patient head fixation during radiotherapy: precision and costs. Int J Radiat Oncol. 1995;33(2):499–507. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prasad V, Jesús KD, Mailankody S. The high price of anticancer drugs: origins, implications, barriers, solutions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017.
  16. 16.
    Coyle D. Statistical analysis in pharmacoeconomic studies. A review of current issues and standards. PharmacoEconomics. 1996;9(6):506–16. Accessed 24 Mar 2017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19(14):1–504. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146(4):473–81. Accessed 24 Mar 2017PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chambers JD, Neumann PJ, Buxton MJ. Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(4):E14–27. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness — the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bae YHJ, Mullins CD. Do value thresholds for oncology drugs differ from nononcology drugs? J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20(11):1086–92. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro AguiarJr.
    • 1
  • Carmelia Maria Noia Barreto
    • 2
  • Brittany L. Bychkovsky
    • 3
    • 4
  • Gilberto de Lima LopesJr.
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculdade de Medicina do ABCSanto AndréBrazil
  2. 2.Clinical Oncology SectorSociedade Beneficência Portuguesa de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  4. 4.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  5. 5.Global Oncology ProgramSylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations