Preliminary results from the NCCN Trends™ survey for January 2010 suggest not only that the majority of oncologists would find information about the relative effectiveness of therapeutic options “extremely helpful” in their practice, but also that oncologists agree that NCCN should be the source of this information. The same respondents were more hesitant when considering information about the cost of care, suggesting that the emphasis on providing information should be on comparative effectiveness of therapeutic options rather than the cost of various approaches.
The survey sought to quantify how oncology clinicians, including physicians, advanced practitioners, pharmacists, and nurses, valued comparative effectiveness data as a tool that could be used in practice. The survey also asked respondents if they believed NCCN should be the organization to provide information around comparative effectiveness.
While the survey is ongoing, preliminary data indicates that 99% of the responding clinicians believe that a comparison of the relative effectiveness of therapeutic options would be a helpful tool in their practice, with 68% of the respondents selecting that such a tool would be “extremely helpful” and another 26% selecting that it would be “very helpful.” (see Figure 1) The survey also queried whether respondents would find information about the relative costs of therapeutic options to be useful in their practice. Survey results suggest that respondents would find this information less helpful than comparative effectiveness data in their practice but would still find it at least somewhat useful, with 44% selecting “extremely helpful,” 36% selecting “very helpful,” and 18% selecting “somewhat helpful.”
The survey also questioned respondents to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement “NCCN should provide a comparison of the relative effectiveness of therapeutic options in the NCCN Guidelines®.” Again, the vast majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed (93%), with no respondents selecting “strongly disagree” and only 1% selecting “disagree.”
As this survey continues, more robust data will be available regarding oncology clinicians’ perceptions of comparative effectiveness information in upcoming weeks. A follow-up report on this survey will appear in a forthcoming edition of NCCN eBulletin that further examines opinions on comparative effectiveness.