128
Views
20
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Estimation of health state utilities in breast cancer

, , , &
Pages 531-536 | Published online: 14 Mar 2017

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to determine the utility of breast cancer health states using the standard gamble (SG) and visual analog scale (VAS) methods in the Korean general population.

Materials and methods

Eight hypothetical breast cancer health states were developed based on patient education material and previous publications. Data from 509 individuals from the Korean general population were used to evaluate breast cancer health states using the VAS and the SG methods, which were obtained via computer-assisted personal interviews. Mean utility values were calculated for each human papillomavirus (HPV)-related health state.

Results

The rank of health states was identical between two valuation methods. SG values were higher than VAS values in all health states. The utility values derived from SG were 0.801 (noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy and followed by reconstruction), 0.790 (noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy only), 0.779 (noninvasive breast cancer with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy), 0.731 (invasive breast cancer with surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy), 0.610 (locally advanced breast cancer with radical mastectomy with radiation therapy), 0.587 (inoperable locally advanced breast cancer), 0.496 (loco-regional recurrent breast cancer), and 0.352 (metastatic breast cancer).

Conclusion

Our findings might be useful for economic evaluation of breast cancer screening and interventions in general populations.

Introduction

Breast cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed and the deadliest cancers among women worldwide, representing a quarter of all cancers diagnosed in women.Citation1 Its incidence is highest in Europe and North America, although cases are on the rise in Africa and Asia.Citation2,Citation3 Over 200,000 new cancers are diagnosed per year. In 2013, breast cancer was the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer in Korea, accounting for 7.7% of all cancers diagnosed.Citation4 Early detection and timely management of breast cancer are important as the social burden of breast cancer is substantial.

Decision makers are interested in both the efficacy and efficiency of early detection and treatment. Cost–utility analysis in economic evaluation was developed to compare the costs of a health care program and its beneficial impacts on both length and quality of life.Citation5 Quality-adjusted life years are used as a utility measure and are calculated by multiplying the length of time spent in a particular health state by the utility weight associated with that health state.Citation6

Quality weights (utility weights) in various breast cancer states are required to estimate quality-adjusted life years or evaluate the cost–utility of intervention for breast cancer. Two approaches have commonly been used to determine the quality weights: direct evaluation using the visual analog scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), and time trade-off (TTO) techniques or indirect approaches using multi-attribute health state classification systems (eg, EQ-5D [EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire]) and quality weight tariffs.Citation7

Previous utility studies have evaluated a range of health states (screening related, adverse events, treatment, and metastatic breast cancer), population groups (professional, patient, and general population), and valuation methodologies.Citation8Citation11 According to the study of Peasgood et alCitation9 reviewing 49 articles, SG was the most frequently used with 59.9%, followed by VAS (22.2%), TTO (11.1%), and EQ-5D (34.5%) in the estimation of utility of metastatic breast cancer health states, and VAS was the most frequently used with 34.5%, followed by SG (28%), EQ-5D (16.9%), and TTO (15.3%) in the estimation of utility of early breast cancer health states. Health utilities in breast cancer states have been shown to vary significantly depending on valuation method, study population, health states, and location.Citation8,Citation9 Policy decision makers need to be aware of country-specific utility weight when evaluating health care interventions.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the utility values of breast cancer health states using the SG and VAS methods in the Korean general population. We anticipate that our findings will have utility in improving cost–utility analysis in Korea. This study was performed as part of a larger research project for the economic evaluation of cancer screening programs.

Materials and methods

Health states

A draft of the breast cancer health state scenarios used in this study was created by two investigators (MO and S-HK) based on guidance for breast cancer patients,Citation12 the 5th Korean guideline for the management of breast cancer,Citation13 and a breast cancer white paper from the Korean breast cancer society.Citation14 One breast specialist from a tertiary teaching hospital (J-WL) reviewed and modified the draft authored by two other medical doctors (M-WJ and MO).

Each breast cancer health state was designed to reflect common treatment regimens considering breast cancer staging. A total of eight hypothetical scenarios were made: 1) noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy only; 2) noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy and followed by reconstruction; 3) noninvasive breast cancer with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy; 4) invasive breast cancer with surgery (mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery), radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy; 5) locally advanced breast cancer with radical mastectomy with radiation therapy; 6) inoperable, locally advanced breast cancer; 7) loco-regional recurrent breast cancer; and 8) metastatic breast cancer. Each scenario consisted of four parts: diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, and progression and prognosis. The progress and prognosis section included treatment side effects, required follow-up visits, 5-year survival probability, and recurrence probability. All scenarios for breast cancer health states are described in detail in Supplementary materials.

Study participants

The target population consisted of adults aged ≥19 years living in Korea (except Jeju Island). A total of 509 representative individuals were randomly selected from this target population using a multistage stratified quota method. A sample quota was assigned to each of the 15 regions according to population structure (number of population in region, sex, age, and level of education), as defined in the June 2013 resident registration data available through the Ministry of Administration and Security, South Korea.

Interviews

Data were collected using computer-assisted, face-to-face interviews. Interviewers were employed by a research agency and were experienced in several valuation studies. In total, 54 interviewers performed all interviews. Interviewers were trained in how to apply the VAS and SG methods using laptops and practiced in pairs before conducting the field survey. Surveys were performed from March to April in 2016.

Participants were initially asked about their region, sex, age, and educational level. Next, participants evaluated eight scenarios and a dead state on the VAS scale. Eight scenarios were displayed randomly regardless of severity, and the dead state was the last scenario to be rated on the VAS scale. Then, each participant was randomly assigned one of eight scenarios evaluated using the SG approach. After the two rounds of evaluation, participants were asked other background questions regarding income, ambulatory care visits within the preceding 2 weeks, admissions during the preceding 12 months, and current diseases. Visual aids were used to help respondents understand questions, and larger sizes of health state descriptions were additionally provided for participants with visual impairments. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (approval no: S2016-0015) with exemption for written informed consent. To minimize the collection of personal information in a minimum risk study, we applied for exemption from written informed consent, and the study proceeded with oral informed consent from each participant for this study.

Valuation methods

We used VAS and SG as valuation methods. In the VAS approach, respondents were asked to rate health states on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 representing the worst imaginable health and 100 indicating the best imaginable health. In the SG valuation tasks, respondents distinguished between health states that were “better than death” states and “worse than death” states. For states considered worse than death, an SG evaluation of the scenario was completed. For states considered better than death, interviewers attempted to determine the respondent’s point of indifference between a certain outcome of the target health state, “i”, over an average life expectancy and receiving treatment with the uncertain prospect of two possible outcomes: either the subject is returned to full health and lives for an average life expectancy (probability “P”) or the subject dies immediately (probability “1 – P”).Citation15 The chances of the best outcome were initially evaluated at 50% and increased or decreased by 10% according to the subject’s response. If respondents changed their preference, the probability of the best outcome was increased or decreased by 5% according to the subject’s response (eg, 50% → 60% → 70% → [if preference changed] 65%). The minimum probability interval was 5%.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were performed for sociodemographic factors. Utility values according to VAS for health states were given by the formula: (x − d)/(100 − d), where x corresponds to the VAS values of the health state and d corresponds to the VAS values of death.Citation15 For states better than death, health state values were given as the probability of normal health at the respondent’s point of indifference according to the SG method. For states worse than death, utility values for all health states were censored at zero.

Mean utility values according to demographic factors and clinical information were compared using Student’s t-test and analysis of variance. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.2 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 509 respondents (mean age, 45.7 [standard deviation: 14.1] years, 48.9% male) were successfully interviewed. Of these, 9% had current comorbidities. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in .

Table 1 Characteristics of participants (n=509)

Utility values for breast cancer scenarios are shown in . The rank of scenarios was identical between the two valuation methods. Scenario 2 (noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy and followed by reconstruction) was assigned the highest utility values at 0.681 using VAS and at 0.804 using SG, while scenario 8 (metastatic breast cancer) was assigned the lowest utility values at 0.170 using VAS and at 0.352 using SG. The mean utility weight calculated according to the SG was greater than that calculated from the VAS for all health states. Difference in utility values between the two valuation methods ranged from 0.117 (noninvasive breast cancer with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy) to 0.182 (metastatic breast cancer). Severe health states tended to have larger differences between the two approaches.

Table 2 Utility values of breast cancer scenarios derived from the VAS and SG approaches

Utility values derived from SG were 0.801 (noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy and followed by reconstruction), 0.790 (noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy only), 0.779 (noninvasive breast cancer with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy), 0.731 (invasive breast cancer with surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy), 0.610 (locally advanced breast cancer with radical mastectomy with radiation therapy), 0.587 (inoperable locally advanced breast cancer), 0.496 (loco-regional recurrent breast cancer), and 0.352 (metastatic breast cancer).

Comparisons of utility weights according to demographic and clinical information are shown in . The mean utility weights calculated from the SG did not differ significantly with sex, age, educational level, and monthly income. However, respondents who had visited ambulatory care in the preceding 2 weeks tended to have higher scores than those who had not visited ambulatory care. Respondents with current comorbidities rated all health states, except metastatic breast cancer, significantly higher than those without disease.

Table 3 Utility weights of breast cancer scenarios derived from the SG approach according to sociodemographic factors

Discussion

In this study, quality weights for eight breast cancer health states using SG and VAS were elicited from 509 respondents of the general population in South Korea. We evaluated the preferences of a relatively large sample and various scenarios using direct valuation methods. The range of breast cancer quality weight values was from 0.352 (metastatic breast cancer) to 0.804 (noninvasive breast cancer with mastectomy and followed by reconstruction), with more severe states consistently found to have lower values.

Our scenarios were based on both medical guidelinesCitation13 and patient education material.Citation12 When evaluating the preferences of the general population, these scenarios need to be explained in a manner than can be universally understood.Citation16 Thus, the use of patient education material enabled respondents to better understand the different breast cancer health states. We included information related to prognosis, including the probability of survival and recurrence in addition to symptoms and treatments in each scenario, as prognosis may influence the utility weights of different cancer states.Citation17,Citation18

In the present survey, males were also recruited to evaluate hypothetical breast cancer states. Previous studies, especially surveys of breast cancer patients, asked females to value breast cancer statesCitation8 as breast cancer is considered a female disease. However, though rare, breast cancer is observed in males.Citation19 From a societal perspective, a preference toward general public opinion, including both female and male, on a health state is recommended by economic evaluation guidelines.Citation20 Therefore, in this study, males were asked to evaluate breast health state imaging of his own or relative’s state. Interestingly, no statistically significant different scenarios in VAS and SG values were observed according to sex, as reported by a previous study.Citation16

We used VAS and SG approaches to determine the utility weights of the general population for different breast cancer health states. The VAS approach is simple and easy to administer and has demonstrated utility in evaluating health states and obtaining ordinal preferences. However, as cardinal preferences obtained using the VAS are prone to biases, the VAS should never be used alone.Citation21 The SG is a classic method for measuring respondent cardinal utilities under conditions of uncertainty and is based directly on the fundamental axioms of the utility theory.Citation22 Subjects from the general population are unable to easily understand the concept of probability, and several studies have reported the SG method to be as feasible and acceptable as TTO in eliciting social health preferences.Citation23Citation25 In order to ensure familiarity with health states, respondents first rated health states using the VAS method, with visual props used in the SG valuation tasks.

As previous breast cancer utility studiesCitation8,Citation9 have used different methodologies, scenarios, and subject groups, direct comparisons are not possible. In this study, SG utility scores were higher than VAS values, corroborating previous research reports.Citation22,Citation26 Peasgood et alCitation9 also reported significantly higher VAS values than those obtained by the SG method in early breast cancer and metastatic breast cancer models. In the Schleinitz general population study using SG, the mean utility values in stages I–IV without estrogen receptor and IV with estrogen receptor were 0.68, 0.61, 0.56, 0.42, and 0.41, respectively.Citation17 Cappelli et alCitation27 compared women’s preferences for breast cancer treatment between breast cancer patients, high-risk relatives, and general population. The mean utility values of lumpectomy and radiation were 0.78, 0.73, and 0.68 in cancer patients, high-risk relatives, and general population, respectively, similar to utility of our scenario 3 (mean =0.779).Citation27 In the study by Shih et alCitation28 of oncology nurses, median utility values ranged from 0.299 to 0.371 in distant recurrence health states and from 0.336 to 0.376 in loco-regional recurrence health states.

A previous breast cancer study using the indirect EQ-5D-3L (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire-three level) method conducted in Korean breast cancer patients reported utility values varying from 0.925 (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage 0) to 0.895 (AJCC stage 3).Citation29 The utility differences between the findings of this study and previous studies in KoreaCitation29 may be attributable to the adaptation of patient and a ceiling effect of EQ-5D-3L. Respondents with current comorbidities in this study reported higher values in most scenarios than those without comorbidities. Patients have previously shown to report higher values for health states than individuals selected from the community.Citation9,Citation30 As several studies have reported a ceiling effect of EQ-5D-3L,Citation31Citation33 EQ-5D-3L may lack sensitivity in specific conditions.

There are several limitations of this study. 1) We purposely reduced the number of scenarios to minimize the cognitive burden on respondents. Consequently, as some scenarios (eg, scenario 5) simultaneously included a variety of situations, it may be difficult for respondents to make fully informed decisions. 2) We did not collect data regarding the total number of persons asked to complete the survey; we were unable to determine the response rate or compare characteristics between responders and nonresponders. However, the general characteristics of the respondents was similar to the general population in Korea due to the multistage stratified quota sampling method used. 3) We did not apply SG method “for states considered worse than death” to reduce burden of subjects and interviewers. In all scenarios except scenario 8 (9.23%), <2% of states indicated that their status was “less than death”. The utility weights in breast cancer states in this study may be overestimated.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate the feasibility of evaluating a range of breast cancer state descriptions using either the VAS or the SG methods in the Korean general population. The VAS and SG methods may have utility in the economic evaluation of breast cancer screening and interventions for the general population and breast cancer patients.

Author contributions

All authors contributed toward data analysis, drafting and critically revising the paper and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (number of study: 1520140).

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • FerlayJSoerjomataramIDikshitRCancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012Int J Cancer20151365E359E38625220842
  • DeSantisCEBrayFFerlayJLortet-TieulentJAndersonBOJemalAInternational variation in female breast cancer incidence and mortality ratesCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev201524101495150626359465
  • ServickKBreast cancer. Breast cancer: a world of differencesScience201434361781452145324675948
  • Korea Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center [webpage on the Internet]Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2013, Ministry of Health and Welfare2015 Available from: http://ncc.re.kr/main.ncc?uri=english/sub04_StatisticsAccessed December 19, 2016 Korean
  • DolanPGudexCKindPWilliamsAValuing health states: a comparison of methodsJ Health Econ199615220923110159110
  • WhiteheadSJAliSHealth outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilitiesBr Med Bull20109652121037243
  • GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMCCost-Effectiveness in Health and MedicineOxfordOxford University Press1996
  • HaoYWolframVCookJA structured review of health utility measures and elicitation in advanced/metastatic breast cancerClinicoecon Outcomes Res2016829330327382319
  • PeasgoodTWardSEBrazierJHealth-state utility values in breast cancerExpert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res201010555356620950071
  • ChieWCHuangCSChenJHChangKJUtility assessment for different clinical phases of breast cancer in TaiwanJ Formos Med Assoc200099967768311000729
  • MilneRJHeaton-BrownKHHansenPThomasDHarveyVCubittAQuality-of-life valuations of advanced breast cancer by New Zealand womenPharmacoeconomics200624328129216519549
  • AhnSEGuidance for Breast Cancer Patient5th edSeoulYoungchang Publication2012 Korean
  • Korean Breast Cancer Society & Korean Cancer Study Group [homepage on the Internet]5th Korean guideline for the management of breast cancer Available from: http://www.kbcs.or.kr/Accessed December 19, 2016 Korean
  • Korean Breast Cancer SocietyBreast Cancer White PaperSeoulKorean Breast Cancer Society2013 Available from: http://www.kbcs.or.kr/sub02/sub04.html#noneAccessed December 19, 2016 Korean
  • TorranceGWMeasurement of health state utilities for economic appraisalJ Health Econ19865113010311607
  • OckMParkJYSonWSLeeHJKimSHJoMWEstimation of utility weights for human papilloma virus-related health states according to disease severityHealth Qual Life Outcomes201614116327894347
  • SchleinitzMDDePaloDBlumeJSteinMCan differences in breast cancer utilities explain disparities in breast cancer care?J Gen Intern Med200621121253126016961753
  • KennedyEDDetskyASLlewellyn-ThomasHACan the standard gamble be used to determine utilities for uncertain health states? An example using postoperative maintenance therapy in Crohn’s diseaseMed Decis Making2000201727810638539
  • KreiterERichardsonAPotterJYasuiYBreast cancer: trends in international incidence in men and womenBr J Cancer201411071891189724518595
  • ClaxtonKWalkerSPalmerSAppropriate perspectives for health care decisionsCHE Research Paper 54YorkCentre for Health Economics, University of York2010
  • TorranceGWFeenyDFurlongWVisual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?Med Decis Making200121432933411475389
  • DrummondMFSculpherMJTorranceGWO’BrienBJStoddartGLMethods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care ProgrammesOxford; New York, NYOxford University Press2005
  • WeeHLLiSCXieFValidity, feasibility and acceptability of time trade-off and standard gamble assessments in health valuation studies: a study in a multiethnic Asian population in SingaporeValue Health200811suppl 1S3S1018387064
  • JoMWKwonDSKimSHKilSRLeeSValidity and reliability of Korean EQ-5D valuation study using a computer-assisted standard gamble methodKorean J Health Promot201010105112 Korean
  • KimSHThe Utility Estimation for EQ-5D-5L Health States Using Standard Gamble Method [dissertation]UlsanUniversity of Ulsan2012
  • MorimotoTFukuiTUtilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionalsJ Epidemiol200212216017812033527
  • CappelliMSurhLHumphreysLMeasuring women’s preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testingQual Life Res200110759560711822793
  • ShihVChanAXieFKoYHealth state utility assessment for breast cancerValue Health Reg Issues2012119397
  • KimSHJoMWLeeJWLeeHJKimJKValidity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for breast cancer patients in KoreaHealth Qual Life Outcomes20151320326694964
  • DolanPOlsenJAMenzelPRichardsonJAn inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in healthHealth Econ200312754555112825207
  • JohnsonJAPickardASComparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, CanadaMed Care200038111512110630726
  • KimSHKimHJLeeSIJoMWComparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in KoreaQual Life Res20122161065107321947656
  • KimTHJoMWLeeSIKimSHChungSMPsychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South KoreaQual Life Res20132282245225323224560