Skip Navigation


Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on July 27, 2006
Annals of Oncology 2007 18(1):197-198; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl171
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/1/197    most recent
mdl171v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Delea, T.
Right arrow Articles by Goss, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Delea, T.
Right arrow Articles by Goss, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2006 European Society for Medical Oncology

letters to the editor

Conclusions regarding relative cost–utility of alternative strategies for use of aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer are premature

TE Delea1,*, J Karnon2 and PE Goss3

1 Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI), Brookline, MA, USA
2 University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, Sheffield, UK
3 Massachusetts General Hospital, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Boston, MA, USA

* (E-mail: tdelea@pai2.com)

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

We read with interest the study by Lønning [1] examining the cost–utility of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. We are concerned, however, with the validity of the analysis, its results and conclusions.

The fundamental assumption underlying the analysis is that each strategy results in the same 2% absolute reduction in the risk of relapse on an intent-to-treat basis. Given the assumption . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?