OBJECTIVES: To identify empirical threshold values for cost-effectiveness on the basis of past  decisions in  Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AHTAPol) in Poland and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK for cancer drug technologies. METHODS: Review of recommendations issued by AHTAPol and NICE for cancer drug technologies was performed. Period under investigation was August 2007 to March 2011 for AHTAPol and March 2000 – March 2011 for NICE. To identify empirical threshold values in both agencies, a comparison of ICER cost/QALY and past decisions was made. RESULTS: In the studied period AHTAPol and NICE issued, respectively, 44 and 54 recommendations for cancer drug technologies. Negative recommendations prevailed in Poland (43%). Most common recommendations in NICE were positive recommendations with major restriction (39%).The most commonly used measure of cost-effectiveness in NICE was ICER cost/QALY (41 recommendations) while in Poland it was identified only in 16 recommendations. As a result of a comparison of ICER cost/QALY and past decisions empirical threshold values in both agencies were not identified. In Poland four positive recommendations with restrictions and 9 negative ones were placed above official AHTAPol’s threshold. In the same time, only 3 positive recommendations with or without restriction were below the threshold. In NICE, 17 positive recommendations with or without restrictions and 11 negative ones were above the official threshold value of £30,000/QALY. Below this threshold, there were 13 positive recommendations with or without restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: AHTAPol, as well as NICE, don’t have definite empirical cost-effectiveness threshold values for cancer drug technologies. The official threshold values set in both agencies are not respected in the case of cancer drugs. Implementation of additional guidelines for “end-of-life” treatment in NICE may have potential impact on decisions concerning cost-effectiveness of cancer drug technologies.