Comparing treatment outcomes using utility assessment for health-related quality of life

ONCOLOGY

Volumn 17, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 1687-1693

  Kattan, Michael W ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAIN MEASUREMENT; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 2442533857     PISSN: 08909091     EISSN: 08909091     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Cantor SB, Spann SJ, Volk RJ, et al: Proslate cancer screening: A decision analysis. J Fam Pract 41:33-41, 1995.
2. Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, et al: Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA2- positive patients. J Clin Oncol 16:979-985, 1998.
3. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG: Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med 299.1397-1401, 1978.
4. Kattan MW, Cowen ME, Miles BJ: A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Gen Intern Med 12:299305, 1997.
5. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG: Speech and survival: Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 305:982-987, 1981.
6. McQuellon RP, Muss HB, Hoffman SL, et al: Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: A study of women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:858-868, 1995.
7. Silvestri G, Pritchard R, Welch HG: Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Descriptive study based on scripted interviews. BMJ 317:771-775, 1998.
8. van Roosmalen M, Verhoef L, Stalmeier P, et al: Extension of a prognostic Markov model for BRCAl-positive women. Med Decis Making 19:521, 1999.
9. Weeks JC, Cook EF, O'Day SJ, et al: Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA 279:1709-1714, 1998.
10. Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, GelberRD: Quality adjusted survival analysis. Stat Med 9:1259-1276, 1990.
11. Weeks J: Taking quality of life into account in health economic analyses. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 20:23-27, 1996.
12. Feeny DH, Torrance GW: Incorporating utility-based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials: Two examples. Med Care 27(3 suppl):S190-S204, 1989.
13. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al: Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1253-1258, 1996.
14. Cole BF, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A: Cox regression models for quality adjusted survival analysis. Stat Med 12:975-987, 1993.
15. Glasziou P, Cole BF, Gelber RD, et al: Quality adjusted survival analysis with repeated quality of life measures. Stat Med 17:1215-1227, 1998.
16. Hwang JS, Tsauo JY, Wang JD: Estimation of expected quality adjusted survival by cross-sectional survey. Stat Med 15:93-102, 1996.
17. Shen L, Pulkstenis E, Hoseyni M: Estimation of mean quality adjusted survival time. Stat Med 18:1541-1554, 1999.
18. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV: Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 1980.
19. Kattan MW, Fearn NA, Miles BJ: Time trade-off utility modified to accommodate degenerative and life-threatening conditions. Paper presented at the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium, Washington, DC, 2001.
20. Bakker C, Rutten-van Molken M, Hidding A, et al: Patient utilities in ankylosing spondylitis and the association with other outcome measures. J Rheumatol 21:1298-1304, 1994.
21. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW: Measuring health state preferences and utilities: Rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques, in Quality of Life and Pharmaco- economics in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed, pp 253- 265. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.
22. Bosch JL, Hunink MG: The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of- life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making 16:217-225, 1996.
23. Froberg DC, Kane RL: Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 42:459-471, 1989.
24. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, et al: The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 18:76-83, 1998.
25. Torrance GW: Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis 40:593-603, 1987.
26. Ross PL, Littenberg B, Fearn P, et al: Paper standard gamble: A paper-based measure of standard gamble utility for current health. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19:135-147, 2003.
27. Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Joseph L, et al: Conventional and chained standard gambles in the assessment of coronary heart disease prevention and treatment. Med Decis Making 19:149-156, 1999.
28. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM: Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 2:477-487, 1993.
29. Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJ, DeHaes HJ, et al: The 'utility' of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time tradeoff? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12:291-298, 1996.
30. Clarke AE, Goldstein MK, Michelson D, et al: The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher Disease. Qual Life Res 6:169-184, 1997.
31. Lenert LA, Hornberger JC: Computer- assisted quality of life assessment for clinical trials, p992. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp, 1996.
32. Lenert LA, Michelson D, Rowers C, et al: IMPACT: An object-oriented graphical environment for construction of multimedia patient interviewing software. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care: A Conference of the American Medical Informatics Association, New Orleans, Oct 28-Nov 1, 1995.
33. Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B: U- titer: A utility assessment tool. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care 701-705, 1991.
34. Boyle MH, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al: Reliability of the health utilities index-Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 4:249, 1995.
35. Lundberg L, Johannesson J, Isacson DG, et al: The relationship between Health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 19:128-140, 1999.
36. Bryce C, Angus D, Stahl J, et al: Using health status measures to predict utilities in patients with end-stage liver disease. Med Decis Making 19:534, 1999.
37. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al: Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1115-1128, 1998.
38. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD: A 12- item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary test of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220-233, 1996.
39. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL: Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S-158S, 1991.