REAL-WORLD APPLICATION AND PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF INNOVATIVE ONCOLOGICAL MEDICINAL THERAPIES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY OF ONCOLOGY SPECIALISTS
Author(s)
Iva Zdravkova-Aneva, MPH1, Rositsa Dimova, MD, PhD, MPH2, Ralitsa D. Raycheva, MA, MCom, PhD1;
1Medical University Plovdiv, Social Medicine and Public Health, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 2Medical University Plovdiv, Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
1Medical University Plovdiv, Social Medicine and Public Health, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 2Medical University Plovdiv, Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
OBJECTIVES: Innovative oncological medicinal therapies (IOMTs) have expanded treatment options across multiple cancer types. This study aimed to assess the extent of IOMT use in routine clinical practice and to evaluate oncologists’ perceptions of their therapeutic effectiveness compared with conventional therapies, based exclusively on specialist opinion.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 115 practicing Bulgarian oncologists. Respondents reported the proportion of patients receiving IOMTs and the key factors influencing treatment selection. Perceived therapeutic effectiveness was assessed across three domains: time-to-event outcomes (e.g., overall survival, progression-free survival), response-to-therapy outcomes (e.g., objective response, disease control), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs; e.g., quality of life, symptom reduction). Comparative assessments between IOMTs and older therapies were captured using predefined categorical response scales.
RESULTS: More than one third of oncologists (36.8%; n=42) reported that over 50% of their patients receive IOMTs, while 23.7% (n=27) reported use in 30-50% of patients and 16.7% (n=19) in fewer than 10%. Therapeutic effectiveness was the most frequently cited determinant of treatment choice (90.7%; n=98), followed by adverse effects (57.4%; n=62), drug availability, and prior clinical experience (both 51.9%; n=56). IOMTs were predominantly perceived as providing superior time-to-event outcomes, particularly overall survival and progression-free survival (74.6%; n=85 each), as well as event-free and disease-free survival (≈60-67%). Higher response-to-therapy outcomes were reported for objective response and disease control (78.1%; n=89), while positive assessments for minimal residual disease and recurrence rates were less pronounced. PROs were more frequently associated with IOMTs, including improved quality of life (71.1%; n=81), symptom reduction (64.9%; n=74), and functional improvement (64.0%; n=73). Across outcome domains, 20-35% of respondents selected “cannot answer,” indicating heterogeneity in clinical experience.
CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists report substantial real-world use of IOMTs and consistently perceive them as more effective than conventional treatments across clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Therapeutic effectiveness remains the primary driver of treatment selection in oncology practice.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 115 practicing Bulgarian oncologists. Respondents reported the proportion of patients receiving IOMTs and the key factors influencing treatment selection. Perceived therapeutic effectiveness was assessed across three domains: time-to-event outcomes (e.g., overall survival, progression-free survival), response-to-therapy outcomes (e.g., objective response, disease control), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs; e.g., quality of life, symptom reduction). Comparative assessments between IOMTs and older therapies were captured using predefined categorical response scales.
RESULTS: More than one third of oncologists (36.8%; n=42) reported that over 50% of their patients receive IOMTs, while 23.7% (n=27) reported use in 30-50% of patients and 16.7% (n=19) in fewer than 10%. Therapeutic effectiveness was the most frequently cited determinant of treatment choice (90.7%; n=98), followed by adverse effects (57.4%; n=62), drug availability, and prior clinical experience (both 51.9%; n=56). IOMTs were predominantly perceived as providing superior time-to-event outcomes, particularly overall survival and progression-free survival (74.6%; n=85 each), as well as event-free and disease-free survival (≈60-67%). Higher response-to-therapy outcomes were reported for objective response and disease control (78.1%; n=89), while positive assessments for minimal residual disease and recurrence rates were less pronounced. PROs were more frequently associated with IOMTs, including improved quality of life (71.1%; n=81), symptom reduction (64.9%; n=74), and functional improvement (64.0%; n=73). Across outcome domains, 20-35% of respondents selected “cannot answer,” indicating heterogeneity in clinical experience.
CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists report substantial real-world use of IOMTs and consistently perceive them as more effective than conventional treatments across clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Therapeutic effectiveness remains the primary driver of treatment selection in oncology practice.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EPH114
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health
Disease
SDC: Oncology