Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-04-2010

Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy

Auteurs: Jennie H. Best, Louis P. Garrison, William Hollingworth, Scott D. Ramsey, David L. Veenstra

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2010

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 elicit preference values for health states associated with Stage III colon cancer (CRC) and to explore the effect of neuropathy associated with current adjuvant treatment.

Methods

We used time trade-off (TTO) techniques to elicit preferences from 49 CRC patients and 49 community members. We elicited preferences for 7 health states: remission; adjuvant therapy with no, mild, moderate, and severe neuropathy; metastatic stable; and metastatic progressive disease. Mean TTO values were adjusted for the covariates age, education, and current health.

Results

Patients’ adjusted mean TTO value for remission was 0.83; adjuvant chemotherapy health states ranged from 0.48 to 0.61. Significant differences were observed for both patient and community groups between TTO for remission and all adjuvant health states (P < 0.001), and between adjuvant therapy with no neuropathy and metastatic health states (P ≤ 0.001). Across all health states, patients’ values were on average 0.12 higher than community members (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The findings highlight the trade-offs between the disutility of adjuvant treatment, the higher utility of remission, and the severe utility loss during metastatic disease. The preference values obtained from this study will be useful for informing patients’ treatment decisions and payer cost-utility analyses of adjuvant treatment for colon cancer.
vorige artikel Factors determining utility measured with the EQ-5D in patients with atrial fibrillation
volgende artikel Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Murray, T., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2007). Cancer statistics, 2007. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57, 43–66.CrossRef
2.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2005). Clinical practice guideline in oncology—Colon cancer (v.2.2006).
3.
Ramsey, S. D. (2007). How should we pay the piper when he’s calling the tune? On the long-term affordability of cancer care in the United States. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 175–179.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Schrag, D. (2004). The price tag on progress—Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. NEJM, 351(4), 317–319.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Twelves, C., Wong, A., Nowacki, M. P., Abt, M., Burris, H., 3rd, Carrato, A., et al. (2005). Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. NEJM, 352(26), 2696–2704.CrossRefPubMed
6.
André, T., Boni, C., Mounedji-Boudiaf, L., Navarro, M., Tabernero, J., Hickish, T., et al. (2004). Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. NEJM, 350(23), 2343–2351.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russel, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.
9.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2005). Social value judgements. Guidelines for the institute and its advisory bodies.
10.
Brown, M. L., Nayfield, S. G., & Shibley, L. M. (1994). Adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: Economic returns to research and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86(6), 424–430.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kievit, J., & van de Velde, C. J. (1990). Utility and cost of carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring in colon cancer follow-up evaluation. A Marhov analysis. Cancer, 65(11), 2580–2587.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Smith, R. D., Hall, J., & Gurney, H. (1993). A cost-utility approach to the use of 5-fluorouracil and levamisole as adjuvant chemotherapy for Dukes’ C colonic carcinoma. Medical Journal of Australia, 158(5), 319–322.PubMed
13.
Dominitz, J. A., & Provenzale, D. (1997). Patient preferences and quality of life associated with colorectal cancer screening. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 92(12), 2171–2178.PubMed
14.
Boyd, N. F., Sutherland, H. J., Heasman, K. Z., Tritchler, D. L., & Cummings, B. J. (1990). Whose utilities for decision analysis? Medical Decision Making, 10(1), 58–67.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Norum, J., Vonen, B., Olsen, J. A., & Revhaug, A. (1997). Adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil and levamisole) in Dukes’ B and C colorectal carcinoma. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of Oncology, 8(1), 65–70.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ness, R. M., Holmes, A. M., Klein, R., & Dittus, R. (1999). Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 94(6), 1650–1657.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ramsey, S., Andersen, M. R., Etzioni, R., Moinpour, C., Peacock, S., Potosky, A., et al. (2000). Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer, 88(6), 1294–1303.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ramsey, S. D., Berry, K., & Etzioni, R. (2002). Lifetime cancer-attributable cost of care for long-term survivors of colorectal cancer. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 97(2), 440–445.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Lloyd, A., de Jonge, P., Doyle, S., Walker, M., & Cohen, C. (2006). Developing health state descriptions for metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study. Value in Health, 9(3), A115.
20.
Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Salomon, J., & Murray, C. J. L. (2004). A multi-method approach to measuring health-state valuations. Health Economics, 13, 281–290.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(6), 593–600.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. W., et al. (1990). Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. McMaster University Working paper 90–99.
24.
Stalmeier, P. F., Goldstein, M. K., Holmes, A. M., Lenert, L., Miyamoto, J., Stiggelbout, A. M., et al. (2001). What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Medical Decision Making, 21, 200–207.PubMed
25.
Lenert, L. A., Cher, D. J., Goldstein, M. K., Bergen, M. R., & Garber, A. (1998). The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 18(1), 76–83.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Elkin, E. B., Cowen, M. E., Cahill, D., Steffel, M., & Kattan, M. W. (2004). Preference assessment method affects decision-analytic recommendations: A prostate cancer treatment example. Medical Decision Making, 24, 504–510.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making, 21, 329–334.PubMed
28.
Dolan, P., & Kahneman, D. (2008). Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. The Econmic Journal, 118, 215–234.
29.
Smith, M. D., Drummond, M., & Brixner, D. (2009). A different approach to health state valuation. Value in Health, 12(S1), S16–S17.
30.
Grothey, A. (2005). Clinical management of oxaliplatin-associated neurotoxicity. Clinical Colorectal Cancer, 5(Suppl 1), S38–S46.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Stiggelbout, A. M., & de Haes, J. C. (2001). Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19(1), 220–230.PubMed
32.
van Osch, S. V., Wakker, P. P., van den Hout, W. B., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2004). Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Medical Decision Making, 24, 511–517.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Martin, A. J., Glasziou, P. P., Simes, R. J., & Lumley, T. (2000). A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Car, 16(1), 137–147.CrossRef
34.
Read, J. L., Quinn, R. J., Berwick, D. M., Fineberg, H. V., & Weinstein, M. C. (1984). Preferences for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Medical Decision Making, 4, 315–329.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Jansen, S. J. T., Kievit, J., Nooij, M., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2001). Stability of patients’ preferences for chemotherapy: The impact of experience. Medical Decision Making, 21(4), 295–306.PubMed
36.
Gabriel, S. E., Kneeland, T. S., Melton, L. J., Moncur, M. M., Ettinger, B., & Tosteson, A. N. (1999). Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: Whose values should we use? Medical Decision Making, 19(2), 141–148.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Patrick, D. L., Starks, H. E., Cain, K. C., Uhlmann, R. F., & Pearlman, R. A. (1994). Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Medical Decision Making, 14, 9–18.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Robinson, A., & Spencer, A. (2006). Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: Valuing states worse than dead. Health Economics, 15, 393–402.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy
Auteurs
Jennie H. Best
Louis P. Garrison
William Hollingworth
Scott D. Ramsey
David L. Veenstra
Publicatiedatum
01-04-2010
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9589-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2010

Quality of life predicts one-year survival in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Exploring the impact of changes in neurogenic urinary incontinence frequency and condition-specific quality of life on preference-based outcomes

Creating and using the CDC HRQOL healthy days index with fixed option survey responses

Factors determining utility measured with the EQ-5D in patients with atrial fibrillation

Temporal changes in the causal foundations of palliative care symptoms

Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing