Health state utility values in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer by treatment line: a systematic review

References

• Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Globocan ME 2012 v1.1, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2016 Feb]. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr.
   Google Scholar
• Grimison PS, Simes RJ, Hudson HM, et al. Deriving a patient-based utility index from a cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire. Value Health. 2009;12:800–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPhail S, Johnson S, Greenberg D, et al. Stage at diagnosis and early mortality from cancer in England. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(Suppl 1):S108–S115.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Irvin W, Muss HB, Mayer DK. Symptom management in metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16:1203–1214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redig AJ, McAllister SS. Breast cancer as a systemic disease: a view of metastasis. J Intern Med. 2013;274:113–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society. Breast cancer survival rates, by stage [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 May]. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-survival-by-stage.
   Google Scholar
• Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:974–986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Decision Support Unit. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 10. The use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values [Internet]. [updated 2011 Apr; cited 2016 Apr]. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD%2010%20mapping%20FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Teckle P, McTaggart-Cowan H, Van der Hoek K, et al. Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Jo MW, Kim HJ, et al. Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D for the assessment of cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vainiola T, Pettila V, Roine RP, et al. Comparison of two utility instruments, the EQ-5D and the 15D, in the critical care setting. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:2090–2093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Papaioannou D, Cantrell A. Identifying and reviewing health state utility values for populating decision models. In: Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al. editors. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, et al. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:288–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doth AH, Hansson PT, Jensen MP, et al. The burden of neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of health utilities. Pain. 2010;149:338–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLernon DJ, Dillon J, Donnan PT. Health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:582–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, et al. An updated systematic review of Health State Utility Values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:853–868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturza J. A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:685–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke. 2001;32:1425–1429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lung TW, Hayes AJ, Hayen A, et al. A meta-analysis of health state valuations for people with diabetes: explaining the variation across methods and implications for economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1669–1678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bermingham SL, Ashe JF. Systematic review of the impact of urinary tract infections on health-related quality of life. BJU Int. 2012;110:E830–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [Internet]. [updated 2013 Apr; cited 2015 Dec]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Decision Support Unit. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11. Alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values [Internet]. [updated 2011 Mar; cited 2016 Apr]. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD11%20Alternatives%20to%20EQ-5D_final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicine Consortium. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form (NPAF) 2014 [Internet]. [updated 2014 Oct; cited 2016 Jan]. Available from: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/submissionprocess/NPAF_Template_Final_October_2014.doc.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada 3rd Edition [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2016 Jan]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.4) [Internet]. [updated 2013 Dec; cited 2016 Jan]. Available from: http://www.pbac.pbs.gov.au/content/information/printable-files/pbacg-book.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hao Y, Wolfram V, Cook J. A structured review of health utility measures and elicitation in advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:293–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, et al. Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:673–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:15–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economics evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Färkkilä N, Torvinen S, Roine RP, et al. Health-related quality of life among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients with end-stage disease. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1387–1394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broeckel JA, Jacobsen PB, Horton J, et al. Characteristics and correlates of fatigue after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1689–1696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone P, Ream E, Richardson A, et al. Cancer-related fatigue–a difference of opinion? Results of a multicentre survey of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2003;12:20–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esbensen BA, Osterlind K, Roer O, et al. Quality of life of elderly persons with newly diagnosed cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2004;13:443–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofman M, Ryan JL, Figueroa-Moseley CD, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem. Oncologist. 2007;12(Suppl 1):4–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard AS, et al. Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy – general. Value Health. 2007;10:266–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J. Health–state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10:553–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Paisley S. Systematic searching and selection of health state utility values from the literature. Value Health. 2013;16:686–695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ScHARRHUD. Database of health utilities’ evidence [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2014 May]. Available from: http://update-sbs.update.co.uk/scharr11/index.php?about.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta–analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Decision Support Unit. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 8. An introduction to the measurement and valuation of health for nice submissions [Internet]. [updated 2011 Aug; cited 2016 Feb]. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/Utilities-TSD-series%282391676%29.htm.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Decision Support Unit. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 9. The identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature [Internet]. [updated 2010 Oct; cited 2016 Apr]. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD9%20HSUV%20values_FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Launois R, Reboul-Marty J, Henry B, et al. A cost-utility analysis of second-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Docetaxel versus paclitaxel versus vinorelbine. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;10:504–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, et al. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:683–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker JP, Doyle S, Farina C. Elicitation of UK health utilities in primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(Suppl 9):ix69–92.
   Google Scholar
• Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jonsson B, et al. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1073–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovacek L, Slovackova B, Slanska I, et al. Depression symptoms and health-related quality of life among patients with metastatic breast cancer in programme of palliative cancer care. Neoplasma. 2009;56:467–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Färkkilä N, Roine R, Jahkola T, et al. Health state utilities in breast cancer. Value Health. 2011;14:A459.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd A, Quadri N, Tamminga H, et al. Utility and work productivity data for economic evaluation of breast cancer therapies in the Netherlands and Sweden. Value Health. 2010;13:A274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, et al. Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA2-positive patients. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:979–985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Sundararajan V, et al. The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci Am. 1999;5:283–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser R, Theriault R, Wilson J, et al. Utilities of metastatic breast cancer patients (pt) treated with taxanes compared to utilities of oncology nurses (nur). Value Health. 2001;4:53.
   Google Scholar
• Schleinitz MD, DePalo D, Blume J, et al. Can differences in breast cancer utilities explain disparities in breast cancer care? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:1253–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons WR. Standard gamble techniques for the measurement of treatment related toxicity in oncology: application to breast cancer. Value Health. 2007;10:A5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichols C, Mitchell SA, Lang K, et al. Acceptability of the NCI patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol. 2012;1:e19633.
   Google Scholar
• 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. 1999;54:213–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearney N, Brown R, Rothman M. Utility measures in cancer care. Eur J Oncol Nursing. 1999;3:192–196.
   Google Scholar
• Sorensen SV, Brown R, Benedict A, et al. Patient-rated utilities in postmenopausal early breast cancer (Ebc): a cross-country comparison. Value Health. 2004;7:641–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherrill B, Amonkar MM, Stein S, et al. Q-TWiST analysis of lapatinib combined with capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:711–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Cella D, Cameron D, et al. Lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone for HER2+ (ErbB2+) metastatic breast cancer: quality-of-life assessment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117:577–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chie WC, Huang CS, Chen JH, et al. Utility assessment for different clinical phases of breast cancer in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2000;99:677–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JY, Ko SK, Kim EJ. Evaluation of quality of life for anti-cancer treatment amongst Korean metastatic breast cancer patients: a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Value Health. 2010;13:A44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne RJ, Heaton-Brown KH, Hansen P. Quality-of-life valuations of advanced breast cancer by New Zealand women. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:281–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delea TE, Sofrygin O, Amonkar M. PCN105 Patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) in women with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer receiving letrozole plus lapatinib or letrozole alone. Value Health. 2010;13:A43–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Brazier J. Is meta–analysis for utility values appropriate given the potential impact different elicitation methods have on values? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1101–1115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess LM, Brady WE, Havrilesky LJ, et al. Comparison of methods to estimate health state utilities for ovarian cancer using quality of life data: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:175–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int. 2002;13:768–776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poku E, Brazier J, Carlton J, et al. Health state utilities in patients with diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular oedema and age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2013;13:74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnett H, Caceres V, Earley A, et al. Systematic review regarding the impact of chemotherapy on symptoms and health related quality-of-life in patients with advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:S293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arber M, Garcia S, Veale T, et al. Sensitivity of a search filter designed to identify studies reporting health state utility values. Poster presented at: HTA International; 2015 Jun 14–17; Oslo, Norway.
   Google Scholar