OBJECTIVES: A myriad of valuation techniques are used by various healthcare system stakeholders to appraise drugs. The objective of this evaluation was to develop a systematic and evidence-based approach to appraising a drug’s relative performance. We developed a multi-attribute valuation methodology taking into account efficacy, safety and humanistic factors to synthesize relative value created by pharmaceutical interventions. We report on our findings for ten oncologic therapies. METHODS: Health Technology Assessments (HTAs), published trial results, and publications archived in PubMed all between 2005 – 2013 were analyzed to identify key value attributes. The following five attributes were considered:  a) Overall Survival (OS), b) Progression Free Survival (PFS), c) Route of Administration, d) Trial Comparator, and e) Adverse events. Based on outcomes from clinical trials for each of those attributes for each drug analyzed, the performance of the 10 oncologic therapies was measured on the selected attributes. We then generated an aggregate score for each drug. Drugs were then compared on value score vs. cost of treatment to understand the value-cost relationship. RESULTS: The multi-attribute analysis and scoring exercise demonstrated that drugs with more than 3 months of OS benefit incremental to their clinical trial comparator had higher net value scores, whereas PFS without a complementary increment in OS did not significantly impact the value score of the drug. Based on a linear model we developed, drug prices increased approximately $170/month ($2040/year) for each month of OS improvement. Larger samples will be required to confirm this correlation. CONCLUSIONS: The framework may be employed to assign a value “score” for cancer drugs that may help stakeholders to assess value versus cost of an oncology treatment. Further research is needed to compare and contrast this framework with ’other’s such as Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s “Drug Abacus” framework.