OBJECTIVES: Value frameworks in oncology are tools designed to evaluate and compare the benefits of different treatments, considering multiple criteria. Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women worldwide and remains the leading cause of cancer-related death. This study aimed to develop a value-based assessment tool and apply it to advanced triple-negative breast cancer (ATNBC), comparing Eribulin versus Capecitabine in Colombia.

METHODS: A multi-criteria matrix was developed, incorporating three attributes from ASCO's Cancer Value Framework (Advanced Disease Setting: 2020) plus three additional elements. The six attributes included were: Clinical Benefit, Toxicity, Bonus Points (Overall Survival tail of the curve - Treatment-Free Interval), Quality of Life (QoL), Evidence Quality and financial analysis. Attribute weights were defined by a small group of healthcare stakeholders. Scores range from -100 to +100: negative scores favor the comparator, positive scores favor the evaluated intervention, and zero indicates equivalence.

RESULTS: Eribulin was superior to capecitabine in effectiveness, QoL, evidence quality and bonus points. Both treatments scored equally in toxicity and financial analysis. Eribulin was not inferior in any attribute. The overall score was +40 points, indicating Eribulin was superior to capecitabine in the general assessment.

CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of innovative therapeutic options in oncology and their high costs lead to the need for tools that allow a broad and multi-perspective evaluation. Our proposal incorporates classical clinical elements (efficacy and safety), less frequent elements but equally important (quality of life, quality of evidence), associating them with a detailed financial analysis. The application of this new value-based assessment tool in ATNBC showed that Eribulin is superior to Capecitabine in the context of the Colombian health system.