Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: The clinical burden of breast cancer (BC) is amongst the largest in oncology, resulting in over 600,000 deaths each year. Although pharmaceutical advances have improved outcomes, access to innovation is delayed in many countries, partly because the perceived value is mainly associated with mature overall survival (OS), data that is often unavailable at the time of health technology assessment. These delays may lead to losses in life-years and productivity, causing a significant societal impact. This study aimed to compare clinician and payer perspectives on the clinical and socioeconomic impact of leveraging the value of endpoints other than OS to enable timely access.
METHODS: Two panel discussions were conducted, exploring clinical experts and ex-payers’ perspectives on the clinical and societal impact of delayed access to innovative BC treatments, and adopting a more comprehensive value framework that encompasses broader clinical and societal gains.
RESULTS: Both panels recognised the significant unmet need in BC and agreed on the clinical and societal consequences of delayed access, but divergent priorities emerged. Clinicians advocated for a more comprehensive approach to value assessment beyond OS, considering unmet need, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and clinical context, and highlighted delayed recurrence and relapse as clinically meaningful endpoints. In contrast, payers consistently prioritised OS as the most highly valued endpoint, demonstrating variable willingness to recognise non-OS endpoints depending on disease stage and level of unmet need. Both panels emphasised the need for timely patient access to improve outcomes and generate meaningful societal impact.
CONCLUSIONS: Advancing recognition of the value of non-OS endpoints across stakeholders requires adaptive, comprehensive value assessment frameworks that capture multidimensional clinical value and broader socioeconomic benefits, thereby supporting timely patient access to innovation.