Health-state utility values in breast cancer

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 553-566

  Peasgood, Tessa ^a   Ward, Sue E ^a   Brazier, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

breast cancer; health state utility; meta analysis; preferences; quality of life; systematic review; utility assessment

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER THERAPY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DISEASE DURATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH STATE UTILITY VALUE; HUMAN; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 77958197968     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erp.10.65     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London, UK (2004).
2. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Valuation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2007).
3. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35(11), 1095-1108 (1997).
4. Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271-292 (2002).
5. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 7(8), 490-502 (1995).
6. Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health 12(1), 159-166 (2009).
7. Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11(2), 215-225 (2010).
8. Stevenson MD, Oakley J, Chilcott JB. Gaussian process modeling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modeling: a case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis. Med. Decis. Making 24(1), 89 (2004).
9. Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Hagerty CG, Speroff L, Speroff T. Costs and net health effects of contraceptive methods. Contraception 69(6), 447-459 (2004).
10. Hind D, Ward S, De Nigris E, Simpson E, Carrol C, Wyld L. Hormonal therapies for early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 26(11), iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-134 (2007).
11. McLernon DJ, Dillon J, Donnan PT. Systematic review: health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review. Med. Decis. Making 28(4), 582 (2008).
12. Bremner KE, Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SMH, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med. Decis. Making 27(3), 288 (2007).
13. Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med. Decis. Making 22, 475-481 (2002).
14. Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of quality-of-life estimates for stroke. Pharmacoeconomics 21(3), 191-200 (2003).
15. Liem YS, Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health 11(4), 733-741 (2008).
16. Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Nooij MA, Noordijk EM, Kievit J. Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med. Decis. Making 20(1), 62-71 (2000).
17. Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP et al. Patients' utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med. Decis. Making 18(4), 391-399 (1998).
18. Jansen SJT, Kievit J, Nooij MA, Stiggelbout AM. Stability of patients' preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med. Decis. Making 21(4), 295-306 (2001).
19. Peasgood T, Ward S, Brazier J. A review and meta analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer. HEDS Discussion Paper Series X/10, University of Sheffield, UK (2010).
20. Bernhard J, Zahrieh D, Coates AS et al. Quantifying trade-offs: quality of life and quality-adjusted survival in a randomised trial of chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 91(11), 1893-1901 (2004).
21. Bernhard J, Zahrieh D, Zhang JJ et al. Quality of life and quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) in patients receiving dose-intensive or standard dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 98, 25-33 (2008).
22. Bonomi AE, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA et al. Quality of life valuations of mammography screening. Qual. Life Res. 17(5), 801-814 (2008).
23. Cappelli M, Surh L, Humphreys L et al. Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual. Life Res. 10(7), 595-607 (2001).
24. Conner-Spady BL, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, Jacobs P, Stewart D. A longitudinal prospective study of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 36(3), 251-259 (2005).
25. Cykert S, Phifer N, Hansen C. Tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: a framework for clinical decisions. Obstet. Gynecol. 104(3), 433-442 (2004).
26. de Haes JC, De Koning HJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Agt HM, de Bruyn AE, van der Maas PJ. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. Int. J. Cancer 49(4), 538-544 (1991).
27. De Koning HJ, Vanineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ et al. Breast-cancer screening and cost-effectiveness - policy alternatives, quality-of-life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int. J. Cancer 49(4), 531-537 (1991).
28. Gordon LG, Scuffham P, Battistutta D et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of two rehabilitation support services for women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 94(2), 123-133 (2005).
29. Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, Antman KH, Neugut AI. Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA2-positive patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 16(3), 979-985 (1998).
30. Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Sundararajan V, Albert SM, Troxel AB, Neugut AI. The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci. Am. 5(5), 283-292 (1999).
31. Hayman JA, Fairclough DL, Harris JR, Weeks JC. Patient preferences concerning the trade-off between the risks and benefits of routine radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 15(3), 1252-1260 (1997).
32. Hayman JA, Kabeto MU, Schipper MJ, Bennett JE, Vicini FA, Pierce LJ. Assessing the benefit of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma-in-situ. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(22), 5171-5177 (2005).
33. Jansen SJ, Otten W, van de Velde CJ, Nortier J W, Stiggelbout AM. The impact of the perception of treatment choice on satisfaction with treatment, experienced chemotherapy burden and current quality of life. Br. J. Cancer 91(1), 56-61 (2004).
34. Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Lambin P, Boersma LJ. Responsiveness of the EQ-5 D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7(1), 11 (2009).
35. Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jonsson B, Rehnberg C. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual. Life Res. 16, 1073-1081 (2007).
36. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Barnabi F, Whelan T, Goldsmith CH. The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Qual. Life Res. 17(2), 333-345 (2008).
37. Mansel R, Locker G, Fallowfield L, Benedict A, Jones D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole vs tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer in the United Kingdom: the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC ('Arimidex', Tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial. Br. J. Cancer 97(2), 152-161 (2007).
38. Namjoshi MA, Taylor TN, Brooks J, Hohl R. Relationship between utility scores and disease-specific quality of life measures in a breast cancer population. Med. Decis. Making 18(4), 470 (1998).
39. Polsky D, Keating NL, Weeks JC et al. Patient choice of breast cancer treatment: impact on health state preferences. Med. Care 40(11), 1068-1079 (2002).
40. Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, Williams LJ et al. A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimumrisk older population. The PRIME trial. Health Technol. Assess. 11(31), 1 (2007).
41. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J. Chronic Dis. 31(697), 704 (1978).
42. Schleinitz MD, DePalo D, Blume J et al. Can differences in breast cancer utilities explain disparities in breast cancer care? J. Gen. Intern. Med. 21(12), 1253-1260 (2006).
43. Sorensen SV, Brown R, Benedict A, Flood E, Revicki D. Patient-rated utilities in postmenopausal early breast cancer (EBC): a cross-country comparison. Value Health 7(6), 641 (2004).
44. Walker M, de Jonge PV, Doyle S, Farina C. Elicitation of UK health utilities in primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 17, 81-82 (2006).
45. Wolowacz SE, Cameron DA, Tate HC, Bagust A. Docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early node-positive breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(6), 925 (2008).
46. Hauser R, Theriault R, Cantor S et al. Utilities of metastatic breast cancer patients (pt) treated with taxanes compared to utilities of oncology nurses (nur). Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 20, (2001) (Abstract 164).
47. Hurny C, van Wegberg B, Bacchi M et al. Subjective health estimations (SHE) in patients with advanced breast cancer: an adapted utility concept for clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer 77(6), 985-991 (1998).
48. Hutton J, Brown R, Borowitz M, Abrams K, Rothman M, Shakespeare A. A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 9, 8-22 (1996).
49. Launois R, Reboul Marty J, Henry B, Bonneterre J. A cost-utility analysis of second-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer - docetaxel versus paclitaxel versus vinorelbine. Pharmacoeconomics 10(5), 504-521 (1996).
50. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, Dewilde S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 95(6), 683-690 (2006).
51. McLachlan SA, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Third line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an evaluation of quality of life and cost. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 54(3), 213-223 (1999).
52. Milne RJ, Heaton-Brown KH, Hansen P et al. Quality-of-life valuations of advanced breast cancer by New Zealand women. Pharmacoeconomics 24(3), 281-292 (2006).
53. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 5, 70 (2007).
54. Simons WR. Standard gamble techniques for the measurement of treatment related toxicity in oncology: application to breast cancer. Value Health 10(3), A5 (2007).
55. Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A. Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 19(11), 1091-1102 (2001).
56. Brown RE, Hutton J. Cost-utility model comparing docetaxel and paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer patients. Anticancer Drugs 9(10), 899-907 (1998).
57. Kearney N, Brown R, Rothman M. Utility measures in cancer care. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 3(3), 192-196 (1999).
58. Dranitsaris G, Hsu T. Cost utility analysis of prophylactic pamidronate for the prevention of skeletal related events in patients with advanced breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 7(4), 271-279 (1999).
59. Dranitsaris G, Leung P, Mather J et al. Cost-utility analysis of second-line hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: a comparison of two aromatase inhibitors to megestrol acetate. Anticancer Drugs 11(7), 591-601 (2000).
60. Leung PP, Tannock IF, Oza AM, Puodziunas A, Dranitsaris G. Cost-utility analysis of chemotherapy using paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinorelbine for patients with anthracycline-resistant breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 17(10), 3082-3090 (1999).
61. Grunberg SM, Boutin N, Ireland A, Miner S, Silveira J, Ashikaga T. Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score. Support Care Cancer 4(6), 435-439 (1996).
62. Gerard K, Dobson M, Hall J. Framing and labeling effects in health descriptions - quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast-cancer. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 46(1), 77-84 (1993).
63. Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc. Sci. Med. 34(9), 993-1004 (1992).
64. Nafees B, Stafford M, Bhalla S. Health utilities in the UK for second line non-small cell lung cancer. Value Health 9, 296 (2006).
65. Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ, Moncur MM, Ettinger B, Tosteson ANA. Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med. Decis. Making 19(2), 141 (1999).
66. Franic DM, Pathak DS, Gafni A. Are health states 'timeless'? A case study of an acute condition: post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 9(1), 69-82 (2003).
67. Polsky D, Mandelblatt JS, Weeks JC et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer treatment: considering the value of patient choice. J. Clin. Oncol. 21(6), 1139-1146 (2003).
68. Perez DJ, Williams SM, Christensen EA, McGee RO, Campbell AV. A longitudinal study of health related quality of life and utility measures in patients with advanced breast cancer. Qual. Life Res. 10(7), 587-593 (2001).
69. Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 32(6), 1425-1429 (2001).
70. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 45(5), 505 (1992).
71. Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, Bombardier C, McGeer A. Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Values and Long-Term Care. Kane RL (Ed.). Lexington Books, MA, USA (1982).
72. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ. Planning Sci. 10(3), 129-136 (1976).
73. O'Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, Weeks JC. Evidence for a possible plateau relationship comparison of time-tradeoff utilities and rating scale values of cancer patients and their relatives. Med. Decis. Making 15, 132-137 (1995).
74. Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, Sleep D. Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health 10(5), 408-414 (2007).
75. McKenzie L, van de Pol M. Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health 12(1), 167-171 (2009). •• Excellent example of a function for mapping from a widely used cancer specific measures onto a generic preference-based measure.
76. Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard S, Lai J-S, Nickolov A. Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapygeneral. Value Health 10(4), 266-272 (2007).
77. Garau M, Shah K, Towse A, Wang Q, Drummond M, Mason A. Assessment and Appraisal of Oncology Medicines: Does NICE's Approach Include all Relevant Elements? What Can be Learnt from International HTA Experiences? Pharmaceutical Oncology Initiative (POI), Office of Health Economics, London, UK (2009). • Provides a general review of methods of economic evaluation in cancer including the source of health-state utility values (HSUVs).
78. Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, Hind D, Rees A, Wilkinson A. Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 11(40), 1-144 (2007).
79. Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis Int. 13(10), 768-776 (2002).
80. Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE. An updated systematic review of Health State Utility Values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporosis Int. 20 (6) 853-868 (2009).
81. Conner-Spady B, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM et al. Responsiveness of the EuroQol in breast cancer patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy. Qual. Life Res. 10(6), 479-486 (2001).
82. Gerard K, Johnston K, Brown J. The role of a pre-scored multi-attribute health classification measure in validating condition-specific health state descriptions. Health Econ. 8(8), 685-699 (1999).
83. Johnston K, Brown J, Gerard K, O'Hanlon M, Morton A. Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc. Sci. Med. 47(2), 213-222 (1998).
84. Isogai PK, Mittmann N, Bordeleau LJ. Health preference instruments in a breast cancer population: is there a ceiling effect when compared to the quality-of-life instruments? J. Clin. Oncol. 26 (Suppl.), 2008 (2008) (Abstract 6597).
85. Ko CY, Maggard M, Livingston EH. Evaluating health utility in patients with melanoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer: a nationwide, population-based assessment. J. Surg. Res. 114(1), 1-5 (2003).
86. Ossa DF, Briggs A, McIntosh E, Cowell W, Littlewood T, Sculpher M. Recombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia: economic value and healthrelated quality-of-life assessment using direct utility elicitation and discrete choice experiment methods. Pharmacoeconomics 25(3), 223 (2007).
87. Rijnsburger AJ, Essink-Bot ML, van Dooren S et al. Impact of screening for breast cancer in high-risk women on health-related quality of life. Br. J. Cancer 91(1), 69-76 (2004).
88. Shih YCT, Wang XS, Cantor SB, Cleeland CS. The association between symptom burdens and utility in Chinese cancer patients. Qual. Life Res. 15(8), 1427-1438 (2006).
89. Locker GY, Mansel R, Cella D, Dobrez D, Sorensen S, Gandhi SK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as primary adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: a US healthcare system perspective. The 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (Arimidex', Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 106(2), 229-238 (2007).
90. Stratmann-Schoene D. A preference-based index for the SF-12. Health Econ. 15(6), 553-564 (2006).
91. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Care 43(7), 736-740 (2005).
92. Yabroff KR, Lawrence WF, Clauser S, Davis WW, Brown ML. Burden of illness in cancer survivors: findings from a population-based national sample. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96(17), 1322-1330 (2004).
93. Yabroff KR, McNeel TS, Waldron WR et al. Health limitations and quality of life associated with cancer and other chronic diseases by phase of care. Med. Care 45(7), 629 (2007).
94. Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 769-779 (2007). • Provides clear guidance on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's reference case for HSUVs.