2024-03-29T13:28:01Zhttps://repositori.uji.es/oai/requestoai:repositori.uji.es:10234/1707682024-03-25T09:12:41Zcom_10234_36080com_10234_9col_10234_36082
00925njm 22002777a 4500
dc
Sacristán, José Antonio
author
Dilla, Tatiana
author
Garrido, Pilar
author
Avendaño, Cristina
author
Cruz-Hernández, Juan J.
author
Espinosa, Javier
author
Comellas, Marta
author
Lizán, Luis
author
2017-09
Aim: To assess whether the use of median overall survival to define clinically meaningful outcomes in the area of oncology could yield different decisions compared with those obtained with a more realistic measure such as individual survival. Methods: Two scenarios that offered equivalent health gains/money spent were presented: ‘median overall survival’ scenario (new treatment provided small clinical benefits for the average population) and ‘individual survival’scenario (new treatment provided substantial clinical benefits for a small percentage of the patients and no benefits for the rest). Responses from both scenarios were compared. Results: Responses between the two scenarios were different for oncologists, healthcare policy makers and patients (p < 0.05). ‘Individual survival’ scenario obtained higher percentage of positive answers compared with ‘median overall survival’. Conclusion: Expressing the benefits of new oncologic treatments in terms of ‘individual survival’ may yield to different healthcare decisions compared with the widely used median overall survival.
SACRISTÁN, José A., et al. Should clinically meaningful outcomes in cancer be based on individual survival rather than median overall survival?. Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2017, vol. 6, no 6, p. 491-495.
http://hdl.handle.net/10234/170768
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0081
cost
cost–effectiveness
efficiency
health outcomes
oncology
patients
treatment
Should clinically meaninglul outcomes in cancer be based on individual survival rather than median overall survival?