When evaluating new drugs for the treatment of cancer, the endpoint survival is the main focus. Many of these new drugs can be shown to have a survival advantage compared to the previously available treatment options. However, it is often emphasized that this is usually only “two to three months” (e.g. Lauterbach 2015, Fojo et al. 2014). This additional survival time is often perceived as insufficient and complaints are also made that the time gained in this way often does not provide an adequate quality of life. Furthermore, the new active ingredients have not been sufficiently tested. The use of the usually high-priced drugs is therefore often not worth the money. Due to the high health policy importance of the assumption that new therapies only offer "two to three months" additional survival time, this study should examine whether this common assumption is in line with the facts. The basis for this is the resolutions for the evaluation of new drugs according to the Drug Market Reorganization Act (AMNOG), which all new active ingredients have had to undergo since 2011 in order to demonstrate their additional benefit compared to the so-called appropriate comparative therapy.

Read more