In response to the rise of effective but expensive new cancer treatments, several organizations have put forth “value frameworks” for oncology. These frameworks, produced by organizations including the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), are tools designed to help doctors, patients, and insurance companies determine how much value a treatment provides relative to its cost. Researchers at PHAR, Tufts, UCLA, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, collaborating on the first published evaluation of the reliability of these frameworks, found only fair to good consistency between different individuals using the same framework to evaluate the same drug. They also found that using each of the three different frameworks could lead to significantly different conclusions about the relative value of cancer treatments. These findings suggest it may be premature to use these value frameworks in treatment decision-making without further evidence of their reliability and validity. The study results were presented at the 2016 ASCO meeting.