Aim: To assess whether the use of median overall survival to define clinically meaningful outcomes in the area of oncology could yield different decisions compared with those obtained with a more realistic measure such as individual survival.
Methods: Two scenarios that offered equivalent health gains/money spent were presented: 'median overall survival' scenario (new treatment provided small clinical benefits for the average population) and 'individual survival'scenario (new treatment provided substantial clinical benefits for a small percentage of the patients and no benefits for the rest). Responses from both scenarios were compared.
Results: Responses between the two scenarios were different for oncologists, healthcare policy makers and patients (p < 0.05). 'Individual survival' scenario obtained higher percentage of positive answers compared with 'median overall survival'.
Conclusion: Expressing the benefits of new oncologic treatments in terms of 'individual survival' may yield to different healthcare decisions compared with the widely used median overall survival.
Keywords: cost; cost–effectiveness; efficiency; health outcomes; oncology; patients; treatment.