How Long and How Well: Oncologists’ Attitudes Toward the Relative Value of Life-Prolonging v. Quality of Life-Enhancing Treatments

Objective. To determine how oncologists value quality-enhancing v. life-prolonging outcomes attributable to chemotherapy. Methods. The authors surveyed a random sample of 1379 US medical oncologists (members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology), presenting them with 2 scenarios involving a hypothetical new chemotherapy drug. Given their responses, the authors derived the implicit cost-effectiveness ratios each physician attributed to quality-enhancing and life-prolonging chemotherapies. Results. The authors received responses from 58% of the oncologists surveyed. On average, the responses implied that oncologists were willing to prescribe treatments that cost $245,972 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; SD $243,663 per QALY) in life-prolonging situations v. only $119,082 per QALY (SD $197,048 per QALY) for treatments that improve quality of life but do not prolong survival (P < 0.001). This difference did not depend on age, gender, percentage of time in clinical work, or self-reported preparedness to use and interpret cost-effectiveness information (P > 0.05 for all specifications). Differences across these situations persisted even among those who considered themselves to be “well-prepared” to make cost-effectiveness decisions. Conclusion. Cost-effectiveness thresholds for oncologists vary widely for life-prolonging chemotherapy compared to treatments that only enhance quality of life. This difference suggests that oncologists value length of survival more highly than quality of life when making chemotherapy decisions.