Determination of quality of life-related utilities for health states relevant to ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

被引:107
作者
Havrilesky, Laura J. [1 ,3 ,6 ]
Broadwater, Gloria [5 ]
Davis, Debra M. [1 ,3 ]
Nolte, Kimberly C. [1 ,3 ]
Barnett, J. Cory [1 ,3 ]
Myers, Evan R. [2 ,3 ,4 ,6 ]
Kulasingam, Shalini [2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Div Gynecol Oncol, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Div Clin & Epidemiol Res, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[3] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[4] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Duke Ctr Clin Hlth Policy Res, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[5] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Canc Ctr Biostat, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[6] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Duke Comprehens Canc Ctr, Durham, NC 27710 USA
关键词
Quality of life; Ovarian cancer; Health state; Utility; OF-LIFE; CHEMOTHERAPY; ASSESSMENTS; PREFERENCES; CISPLATIN; MARKERS; SCREEN; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.026
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objectives. (1) To define a set of health state descriptions related to screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and toxicities relevant to ovarian cancer; (2) To derive a set of quality of life-related utilities to be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. Methods. A comprehensive list of health states was developed to represent the experiences of diagnostic testing for ovarian cancer, natural history of ovarian cancer (e.g., newly diagnosed early stage ovarian cancer, recurrent progressive ovarian cancer) and the most common chemotherapy-related toxicities (e.g. alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, pain, neutropenia, fatigue). Valuation of each health state was obtained through individual interviews of 13 ovarian cancer patients and 37 female members of the general public. Interviews employed visual analog score (VAS) and time trade off (TTO) methods of health state valuation. Results. Mean TTO-derived utilities were higher than VAS-derived utilities by 0.118 U (p<0.0001). Mean VAS-derived utilities for screening tests were 0.83 and 0.81 for true negative blood test and ultrasound; 0.79 and 0.78 for false negative blood test and ultrasound, respectively. Patients and volunteers generally agreed in their preference ranking of chemotherapy-associated states, with lowest rankings being given to febrile neutropenia, grades 3-4 fatigue, and grades 3-4 nausea/vomiting. For 55% of chemotherapy-associated health states, the average utility assigned was higher for patients than for volunteers. Conclusions. This study establishes societal preferences for a number of health states related to screening, diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer that can be used for assessing the cost-effectiveness of different ovarian cancer screening and treatment regimens. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:216 / 220
页数:5
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2006, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0
[3]   New tumor markers: CA125 and beyond [J].
Bast, RC ;
Badgwell, D ;
Lu, Z ;
Marquez, R ;
Rosen, D ;
Liu, J ;
Baggerly, KA ;
Atkinson, EN ;
Skates, S ;
Lokshin, A ;
Menon, U ;
Jacobs, I ;
Lu, K .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2005, 15 :274-281
[4]  
Brazier J., 1999, J Health Serv Res Policy, V4, P174, DOI [DOI 10.1177/135581969900400310, 10.1177/135581969900400310]
[5]   Ovarian cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: Findings from the initial screen of a randomized trial [J].
Buys, SS ;
Partridge, E ;
Greene, MH ;
Prorok, PC ;
Reding, D ;
Riley, TL ;
Hartge, P ;
Fagerstrom, RM ;
Chia, D ;
Izmirlian, G ;
Fouad, M ;
Ragard, LR ;
Johnson, CC ;
Gohagan, JK .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 193 (05) :1630-1639
[6]   Perceptions of cisplatin-related toxicity among ovarian cancer patients and gynecologic oncologists [J].
Calhoun, EA ;
Bennett, CL ;
Peeples, PA ;
Lurain, JR ;
Roland, PY ;
Weinstein, JM ;
Fishman, DA .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1998, 71 (03) :369-375
[7]   A comparison of ovarian cancer treatments: analysis of utility assessments of ovarian cancer patients, at-risk population, general population, and physicians [J].
Calhoun, EA ;
Fishman, DA ;
Lurain, JR ;
Welshman, EE ;
Bennett, CL .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2004, 93 (01) :164-169
[8]   Treatment preferences in recurrent ovarian cancer [J].
Donovan, KA ;
Greene, PG ;
Shuster, JL ;
Partridge, EE ;
Tucker, DC .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2002, 86 (02) :200-211
[9]  
Drummond MF., 2015, Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes
[10]  
Grann VR, 1999, CANCER J, V5, P283