Breast Cancer Quality of Life and Health-state Utility at a Brazilian Reference Public Cancer Center

References

• McKenna SP. Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Med. 2011;9:86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolowacz SE, Briggs A, Belozeroff V, et al. Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2016;19(6):704–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brettschneider C, Lühmann D, Raspe H. Informative value of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). GMS Health Technol Assess. 2011;7:1-15. Doc01.
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, et al. Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(8):887–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwenkglenks M, Matter-Walstra K. Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(2):207–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [Internet]. London (UK); 2013 [cited 2018 Aug 15]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK395867/
   Google Scholar
• Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, et al. International agency for research on cancer. Global cancer observatory: cancer today [Internet]. Lyon (France); 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 15]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today
   Google Scholar
• Instituto Nacional de Câncer/Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância. Estimativa 2018: incidência de câncer no Brasil [Internet]. Brasil; 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 15]. Available from: http://www.inca.gov.br/estimativa/2018/
   Google Scholar
• Manganiello A, Hoga LA, Reberte LM, et al. Sexuality and quality of life of breast cancer patients post mastectomy. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15(2):167–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bezerra KB, Silva DS, Chein MB, et al. Quality of life of women treated for breast cancer in a city of the northeast of Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 2013;18(7):1933–1941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia SN, Jacowski M, Castro GC, et al. Quality of life domains affected in women with breast cancer. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2015;36(2):89–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ac GCK, Aa U, Ds DC, et al. Fatigue after treatment in breast cancer survivors: prevalence, determinants and impact on health-related quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(8):1901–1909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-3L user guide – basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. [Internet]. The Netherlands; 2015 [cited 2018 Aug 15]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, et al. The EORTC quality of life group. The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. 3rd. Belgium, Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Santos M, Cintra MA, Monteiro AL, et al. Brazilian valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states: results from a saturation study. Med Decis Making. 2015;pii:0272989X15613521.
   Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Jiang R, Lin HW, et al. Using patient-reported outcomes to compare relative burden of cancer: EQ-5D and functional assessment of cancer therapy-general in eleven types of cancer. Clin Ther. 2016;38(4):769–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naik H, Howell D, Su S, et al. EQ-5D health utility scores: data from a comprehensive Canadian cancer centre. Patient. 2017;10(1):105–115.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abrahams HJG, Gielissen MFM, Verhagen CAHHVM, et al. The relationship of fatigue in breast cancer survivors with quality of life and factors to address in psychological interventions: asystematic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2018;63:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinten C, Martinelli F, Coens C, et al. Patient Reported Outcomes and Behavioral Evidence (PROBE) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) clinical groups. A global analysis of multitrial data investigating quality of life and symptoms as prognostic factors for survival in different tumor sites. Cancer. 2014;120(2):302–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffatt S, Noble E, White M. Addressing the financial consequences of cancer: qualitative evaluation of a welfare rights advice service. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e42979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauzier S, Maunsell E, Drolet M, et al. Wage losses in the year after breast cancer: extent and determinants among Canadian women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(5):321–332.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ghislain I, Zikos E, Coens C, et al. European Organisation for Research And Treatment Of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life group, breast cancer group, EORTC headquarters. Health-related quality of life in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: methodological and clinical issues in randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):e294–e304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes R, Mitchell CR, Bishop RS, et al. Health-state utility values in breast and prostate cancer measured using the EQ-5D: a systematic review of the literature. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A645–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):365–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E. Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health. 2008;11(1):76–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayadevappa R, Cook R, Chhatre S. Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life-a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:188–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.
   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
• Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar