Value of innovation in hematologic malignancies: a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses

Cayla J. Saret, Aaron Winn, Gunjan Shah, Susan K. Parsons, Pei-Jung Lin, Joshua T. Cohen and Peter J. Neumann


We analyzed cost-effectiveness studies related to hematologic malignancies from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (, focusing on studies of innovative therapies. Studies that met inclusion criteria were categorized by four cancer types (chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM)) and nine treatment agents (α interferon, alemtuzumab, bendamustine, bortezomib, dasatinib, imatinib, lenalidomide, rituximab alone or in combination, and thalidomide). We examined study characteristics and stratified cost-effectiveness ratios by type of cancer, treatment, funder, and year of study publication. Twenty-nine studies published 1996-2012 (including 44 cost-effectiveness ratios) met inclusion criteria, twenty-two (76%) of which were industry-funded. Most ratios fell below $50,000/QALY (73%) and $100,000/QALY (86%). Industry-funded studies (n=22) reported a lower median ratio ($26,000/QALY) than others (n=7) ($33,000/QALY), although the difference was not statistically significant. Published data suggest innovative treatments for hematologic malignancies may provide reasonable value for money.

  • Submitted July 31, 2014.
  • Accepted December 15, 2014.