With $1.1 Billion At Stake, Cancer Groups Mull “Comparative Effectiveness” Studies

From The Cancer Letter, May 22, 2009:

As the federal government prepares to turn loose $1.1 billion in new funds on “comparative effectiveness research,” definitions of these methods of comparing therapies seem to be elusive.

How will the government set priorities for comparative effectiveness studies? How will comparative effectiveness studies correlate with oncology studies that are focused on efficacy? What will be the required standards of evidence? How will the link between payment and evidence be established? How will cost and benefits of treatments be assessed?
 
In oncology, a specialty where reliance on rigorous studies coexists with the tradition of flying by the seat of the pants, the government’s new agenda is causing considerable anxiety. Last week, all major cancer groups signed on to a thick and not obviously politically controversial report that lays out the role comparative effectiveness might play in oncology. The report’s authors agree that signing on to the report is akin to expressing support for Roget’s International Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases.

For the rest of the story, and other cancer-related news of the week, click on The Cancer Letter Archive at left to read the May 22 issue (subscription or day pass required).






_____
tags: clinical trials|  cooperative groups|  policy issues|  research funding