Literature DB >> 22966947

Quality-adjusted life years in cancer: pros, cons, and alternatives.

R M Woodward1, J Menzin, P J Neumann.   

Abstract

High and rising cancer treatment costs have forced a discussion about the use of cost-effectiveness analyses and other approaches to assess the value of cancer care. Oncologists have traditionally resisted using economic considerations in day-to-day medical considerations, though unavoidably their decisions have important resource implications, and increasingly economic realities are impacting their actions. In this paper, we summarise the use of the quality-adjusted life years to assess the value of cancer care and suggest potential ways to improve upon value measurement in cancer coverage and reimbursement decisions.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22966947     DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)        ISSN: 0961-5423            Impact factor:   2.520


  3 in total

1.  Primary prophylaxis with hematopoietic colony stimulating factor: insights from a Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Scott A Strassels; Michael Dickson; Leann B Norris; Charles L Bennett
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Increased survival time or better quality of life? Trade-off between benefits and adverse events in the systemic treatment of cancer.

Authors:  V Valentí; J Ramos; C Pérez; L Capdevila; I Ruiz; L Tikhomirova; M Sánchez; I Juez; M Llobera; E Sopena; J Rubió; R Salazar
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  Communicating Value in Health Care Using Radar Charts: A Case Study of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Nikhil G Thaker; Tariq N Ali; Michael E Porter; Thomas W Feeley; Robert S Kaplan; Steven J Frank
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.840

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.