e23102 Background: The rise of cancer drug prices has raised alarm over the need to base pricing decisions on the clinical added value (CAV). The French National Authority for Health (HAS) is responsible for health technology assessment (HTA) in France. For each indication retained for reimbursement, the HAS assesses the CAV on a 5-point scale ranging from I (Major) to V (absence of clinical added value). This assessment is primarily based on medical evidence. The CAV score is one of the factors contributing to price negotiations between the French ministry and pharmaceutical companies. Methods: A retrospective and descriptive study analysis of all indications in oncology (hematology and solid tumors), excluding accelerated approvals for innovative treatments, was conducted by the HAS comparing the 2010-2015 and 2016-2022 periods. For each assessment, information relative to the level of evidence and the clinical effect of the drug from the HAS opinion were collected and focused on the study’s conclusive endpoints and design. Results: The global distribution of CAV score between the two studied periods (2010-2015 and 2016-2022) was similar. However, the distribution of CAV score based on study design differed between the two periods. Regarding non comparative studies, the proportion of indications that were attributed a CAV score V increased 1.7 times between 2010-2015 and 2016-2022 and those with a CAV score I-III was nearly divided by 3. Differences were equally observed for the distribution of CAV score between the two periods based on the conclusive endpoints in the pivotal study. For the studies with a conclusive endpoint on overall survival, the rate of CAV I-III was multiplied by 1.68 (an increase from 6 to 36 cases). Concerning the cases with a progression-free survival endpoint, an observed increase of 1.3 times was noted for the CAV I-III. Lastly, studies with a conclusive overall response rate (ORR) saw an increase of 1.4 times for the CAV V as well as a decrease of 0.76 times for the CAV I-III. Over the most recent period (2016-2022), the conclusive endpoints identified in the evaluated studies were predominantly the overall response rate (93%, n = 42/45) for phase II studies. For phase III studies, progression-free survival and overall survival were respectively identified in 45% and 30% of the cases. Conclusions: Thisstudy shows that the number of indications evaluated has increased and that the assessment of the CAV is closely correlated with the choices of the study design (comparative or not) and the primary endpoint (clinically relevant or not). However, other elements underpin and qualify its valuation such as the medical need. These elements are reviewed in the HAS Guidance which emphasises overall survival as a primary endpoint and comparative data.