Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: Revisions and Reflections in Response to Comments Received
Authors: Lowell E. Schnipper, Nancy E. Davidson, Dana S. Wollins, Douglas W. Blayney, Adam P. Dicker, Patricia A. Ganz, J. Russell Hoverman, Robert Langdon, Gary H. Lyman, Neal J. Meropol, Therese Mulvey, Lee Newcomer, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Blase Polite, Derek Raghavan, Gregory Rossi, Leonard Saltz, Deborah Schrag, Thomas J. Smith, Peter P. Yu, Clifford A. Hudis, Julie M. Vose, Richard L. Schilsky
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2016)

The mission of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care. Toward fulfillment of this goal and at the direction of its board of directors, the ASCOValue in Cancer Care Task Force set out to develop a framework that would enable a physician and patient to assess the value of a particular cancer treatment regimen given the patient’s individual preferences and circumstances. The rationale that served as the impetus for this initiative is many faceted. Substantial progress has been made in translating our knowledge of the biologic characteristics of cancer into novel therapies. Some of these therapies have led to major improvements in outcomes for specific diseases, and others have produced only modest advances. There is now a wide array of choices for treating many cancer types, and these treatment choices often differ by only small degrees in clinical effectiveness and toxicity. Yet, there is often a wide disparity in cost to patients and payers. Because patients are often confronted with enormous expenses when receiving cancer care, the goal of describing a relationship between the cost of an agent or regimen and the clinical benefits it delivers takes on great importance. As the primary advisor to the patient, the oncologist has an important role in providing a comparative assessment of the various treatment options available; in the spirit of shared decision making, the patient should have transparent information about the clinical impact that can be expected from the different options presented and their relative financial implications. The value framework has been constructed as a conceptual model that incorporates the elements of clinical benefit, toxicity, and symptom palliation as derived from a comparative clinical trial and combines these elements into a score termed the net health benefit (NHB). Ultimately, deployment of the framework as a software application is planned, enabling a patient to modify the weight attributed to any of the elements included in the NHB depending on his or her personal preferences and circumstances. The final NHB will therefore reflect the priorities that are most important to the patient and will be arrived at through guidance from the physician. Information on the cost of the regimens will also be presented so the patient can consider the relative financial impact of his or her treatment options. Two versions of the framework have been created: one for advanced disease and the other for potentially curable (adjuvant therapy) clinical presentations. The original framework versions are shown in Appendix Tables A1 and A2 (online only). The key elements included in the framework— namely, clinical benefit and toxicity—are also those that are regularly reported in the scientific literature when discussing the outcome of a clinical trial that compares two or more therapies. The importance of relying on high-quality, quantifiable evidence cannot be overstated, and this is most often provided by a well-designed, well-conducted prospective randomized trial. The task force recognizes that a limitation of this approach is that it does not readily permit cross-trial comparisons. Such analyses are important to patients and remain a goal for future versions of the value framework. The task force is well aware that there are many elements that might be important to individual patients in assessing the relative value of their treatment options that are not taken into account in our model. These include the convenience of receiving therapy, the avoidance of interrupting the flow of activities of daily living, and the impact of a treatment on quality of life