Walter Evelyn
Institute for Pharmaeconomic Research, Vienna, Austria.
Recent Results Cancer Res. 2019;213:85-108. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01207-6_7.
This article sets out to describe different value frameworks in the field of new developments in oncology. Since the costs of new oncological therapies follow a steep path, their implementation and financing demand a thorough assessment. This is an ambitious task due to the complex nature of oncological treatments within overall health policy. Five value frameworks were reviewed: European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework (version 2.0), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center DrugAbacus, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Value Assessment Framework. They are all based on a large set of criteria. However, all these frameworks differ considerably in their outcomes. Among the main differences one has to cite are the inclusion of costs and the use of different outcomes, as well as the fact that they address different target stakeholders, etc. Despite these shortcomings, the value frameworks serve the necessity to introduce more rationality in health decision making seen from the perspective of physicians, patients, and financing bodies.
本文旨在描述肿瘤学新进展领域的不同价值框架。由于新型肿瘤治疗方法的成本呈急剧上升趋势,其实施和资金筹集需要进行全面评估。鉴于肿瘤治疗在整体卫生政策中的复杂性,这是一项艰巨的任务。对五个价值框架进行了综述:欧洲医学肿瘤学会(ESMO)临床获益程度量表、美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)价值框架(2.0版)、美国国立综合癌症网络(NCCN)证据模块、纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心药物算盘以及临床与经济评论学会价值评估框架。它们均基于大量标准。然而,所有这些框架在结果上差异很大。主要差异包括成本的纳入、不同结果的使用,以及它们针对不同目标利益相关者等事实。尽管存在这些缺点,但从医生、患者和筹资机构的角度来看,价值框架有助于在卫生决策中引入更多合理性。