Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 9/2019

25-04-2019

Health utility and health-related quality of life of Japanese prostate cancer patients according to progression status measured using EQ-5D-5L and FACT-P

Auteurs: Hideki Murasawa, Takayuki Sugiyama, Yuki Matsuoka, Takashi Okabe, Amiko Hino, Nobumichi Tanaka, Mikio Sugimoto, Masafumi Oyama, Kiyohide Fujimoto, Shigeo Horie, Shinichi Noto, Kojiro Shimozuma

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To obtain health utility data to allow for cost-effectiveness analysis in groups stratified by disease progression along with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) information in Japanese prostate cancer (PC) patients.

Methods

In this cross-sectional observational study, EuroQol-5 Dimension- 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L), EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) measures were used to examine utility, VAS scores, and disease-specific HRQoL, respectively. Scores obtained were statistically examined for the correlation among measures and domains. Parameter estimates of statistically significant factors were assessed using generalized linear models (GLM).

Results

A total of 380 patients stratified by their disease progression status were analyzed. The numbers (%) of patients in groups stratified as having localized (L), localized progression (LP), distant metastatic (DM), and DM-castration-resistant PC (CRPC) were 275 (72.4), 40 (10.5), 27 (7.1), and 38 (10.0), respectively. EQ-5D-5L mean (standard deviation, SD) scores of L, LP, DM, and DM-CRPC in study participants were 0.87 (0.15), 0.86 (0.15), 0.85 (0.18), and 0.84 (0.17), respectively. The mean (SD) scores assessed by EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, and FACT-P instruments were 0.86 (0.16), 74.6 (16.8), and 110.8 (19.6), respectively. Utility scores correlated well with FACT-P scores. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had significant influences on all instruments’ scores.

Conclusions

We obtained health utility and HRQoL scores of Japanese PC patients stratified by disease progression in detail. Our results will be useful for establishing cost-effectiveness analyses in Japanese PC settings.
vorige artikel Process utilities for topical treatment in atopic dermatitis
volgende artikel Association of the built environments and health-related quality of life in community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional study
Literatuur
1.
Hori, M., Matsuda, T., Shibata, A., Katanoda, K., Sobue, T., & Nishimoto, H. (2015). Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2009: A study of 32 population-based cancer registries for the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 45(9), 884–891.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Kakehi, Y., Sugimoto, M., & Taoka, R. (2017). Evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer (summary: Japanese Urological Association, 2016 edition). International Journal of Urology, 24(9), 648–666.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., & Takura, T. (2017). New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations. Health Policy, 121(8), 836–841.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., Takura, T., & Moriwaki, K. (2017). Development of an Official Guideline for the Economic Evaluation of Drugs/Medical Devices in Japan. Value in Health, 20(3), 372–378.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Shimizu, F., Fujino, K., Ito, Y. M., Fukuda, T., Kawachi, Y., Minowada, S., et al. (2008). Factors associated with variation in utility scores among patients with prostate cancer. Value in Health, 11(7), 1190–1193.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Namiki, S., Ishidoya, S., Saito, S., Mitsukawa, S., Suzuki, Y., Numata, I., et al. (2008). Quality of life following endocrine therapy for advanced prostate cancer: A comparative study between LH-RH agonist 1-month depot and 3-month depot. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi, 99(5), 631–637. (in Japanese).PubMed
7.
Akakura, K., Matsuzaki, K., Kobayashi, T., Kitoh, H., Mizoguchi, K., Tomikawa, G., et al. (2011). Evaluation of utility index of quality of life (QOL) in prostate cancer patients: Comparison of QOL utility index EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and visual analogue scale (VAS) with health-related QOL questionnaires SF-36 and EPIC. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi, 102(1), 9–13. (in Japanese).PubMed
8.
Berger, M. L., Bingefors, K., Hedblom, E. C., Pashos, C. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2003). Health care cost, quality and outcomes: ISPOR Book of Terms. Lawrenceville, NJ: ISPOR.
9.
Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G., & Torrance, G. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
Fujimura, T., Takahashi, S., Kume, H., Takeuchi, T., Kitamura, T., & Homma, Y. (2009). Cancer-related pain and quality of life in prostate cancer patients: assessment using the Functional Assessment of Prostate Cancer Therapy. Internaltional Journal of Urology, 16(5), 522–525.CrossRef
11.
Peters, M. L., de Meijer, C., Wyndaele, D., Noordzij, W., Leliveld-Kors, A. M., van den Bosch, J., et al. (2018). Dutch economic value of radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 16(1), 133–143.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Tan, S. H., Abrams, K. R., & Bujkiewicz, S. (2018). Bayesian multiparameter evidence synthesis to inform decision making: A case study in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Medical Decision Making, 38(7), 834–848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Collins, R., Fenwick, E., Trowman, R., Perard, R., Norman, G., Light, K., et al. (2007). A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Health Technology Assessment, 11(2), iii–iv, xv–xviii, 1–179.
14.
Boyd, K. A., Jones, R. J., Paul, J., Birrell, F., Briggs, A. H., & Leung, H. Y. (2015). Decision analytic cost-effectiveness model to compare prostate cryotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy for treatment of radiation recurrent prostate cancer. British Medical Journal Open, 5(10), e007925.
15.
Zemplenyi, A. T., Kalo, Z., Kovacs, G., Farkas, R., Beothe, T., Banyai, D., et al. (2018). Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care, 27(1), e12430.CrossRef
16.
Loeb, S., Zhou, Q., Siebert, U., Rochau, U., Jahn, B., Muhlberger, N., et al. (2017). Active surveillance versus watchful waiting for localized prostate cancer: A model to inform decisions. European Urology, 72(6), 899–907.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Helou, J., Torres, S., Musunuru, H. B., Raphael, J., Cheung, P., Vesprini, D., et al. (2017). Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus low dose rate brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer: A cost-utility analysis. Clinical Oncology, 29(11), 718–731.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., et al. (2012). State-transition modeling: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Value in Health, 15(6), 812–820.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Brooks, R., & EuroQol Group. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.CrossRef
20.
Cabasés, J. (2014). Chapter 1 Introduction. In A. Szende, B. Janssen, & J. Cabases (Eds.), Self-reported population health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D (pp. 1–6). Dordrecht: Springer.
21.
Feng, Y., Herdman, M., van Nooten, F., Cleeland, C., Parkin, D., Ikeda, S., et al. (2017). An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2067–2078.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Ikeda, S., Shiroiwa, T., Igarashi, A., Noto, S., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., et al. (2015). Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. Journal of the National Institute of Public Health, 64(1), 47–55. (in Japanese).
24.
25.
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579.CrossRefPubMed
26.
D’Amico, A. V., Whittington, R., Malkowicz, S. B., Schultz, D., Blank, K., Broderick, G. A., et al. (1998). Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Journals of the American Medical Association, 280(11), 969–974.CrossRef
27.
Kitagawa, Y., Izumi, K., Sawada, K., Mizokami, A., Nakashima, K., Koshida, K., et al. (2014). Age-specific reference range of prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer detection in population-based screening cohort in Japan: verification of Japanese Urological Association Guideline for prostate cancer. International Journal of Urology, 21(11), 1120–1125.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Oken, M. M., Creech, R. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–655.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Yamada, T., Morita, T., Maeda, I., Inoue, S., Ikenaga, M., Matsumoto, Y., et al. (2017). A prospective, multicenter cohort study to validate a simple performance status-based survival prediction system for oncologists. Cancer, 123(8), 1442–1452.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Konnopka, A., & Koenig, H. H. (2017). The “no problems”-problem: An empirical analysis of ceiling effects on the EQ-5D 5L. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2079–2084.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Cella, D., Petrylak, D. P., Fishman, M., Teigland, C., Young, J., & Mulani, P. (2006). Role of quality of life in men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: How does atrasentan influence quality of life? European Urology, 49(5), 781–789.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Torvinen, S., Bergius, S., Roine, R., Lodenius, L., Sintonen, H., & Taari, K. (2016). Use of patient assessed health-related quality of life instruments in prostate cancer research: A systematic review of the literature 2002–15. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 32(3), 97–106.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Cheung, Y. B., Luo, N., Ng, R., & Lee, C. F. (2014). Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 180. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12955-014-0180-6.CrossRef
36.
Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Shimozuma, K., Kuranami, M., Suemasu, K., Ohashi, Y., et al. (2011). Comparison of EQ-5D scores among anthracycline-containing regimens followed by taxane and taxane-only regimens for node-positive breast cancer patients after surgery: The N-SAS BC 02 trial. Value in Health, 14(5), 746–751.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Adamowicz, K. (2017). Assessment of quality of life in advanced, metastatic prostate cancer: An overview of randomized phase III trials. Quality of Life Research, 26(4), 813–822.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Metagegevens
Titel
Health utility and health-related quality of life of Japanese prostate cancer patients according to progression status measured using EQ-5D-5L and FACT-P
Auteurs
Hideki Murasawa
Takayuki Sugiyama
Yuki Matsuoka
Takashi Okabe
Amiko Hino
Nobumichi Tanaka
Mikio Sugimoto
Masafumi Oyama
Kiyohide Fujimoto
Shigeo Horie
Shinichi Noto
Kojiro Shimozuma
Publicatiedatum
25-04-2019
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02184-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2019

Quality of Life Research 9/2019 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in patients following total hip or knee replacement

OriginalPaper

Health state utilities associated with attributes of migraine preventive treatments based on patient and general population preferences

Review

Systematic review of the measurement properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales–21 by applying updated COSMIN methodology

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life in adult males with lower urinary tract symptoms

OriginalPaper

Socioeconomic inequalities in oral health-related quality of life in adolescents: a cohort study

OriginalPaper

Self-management and psychological resilience moderate the relationships between symptoms and health-related quality of life among patients with hypertension in China