A systematic review of health state utility values in Thai cancer patients

References

• Goodacre S, McCabe C. An introduction to economic evaluation. Emerg Med J. 2002; 193:198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudmik L, Drummond M. Health economic evaluation: important principles and methodology. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(6):1341–1347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakthong P. Measurement of clinical-effect: utility. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91:S43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2004;329(7459):224–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rencz F, Gulácsi L, Drummond M, et al. EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000-2015. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2693–2710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–1257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Lorgelly PK. QALYs as a measure of value in cancer. J Cancer Policy. 2017;11:19–25.
   Google Scholar
• Rashidi AA, Anis AH, Marra CA. Do visual analogue scale (VAS) derived standard gamble (SG) utilities agree with Health Utilities Index utilities? A comparison of patient and community preferences for health status in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement of utility. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97:S43–9.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J. Measurement and valuation of health for economic evaluation. In: Quah SR, editor. International Encyclopedia of Public Health. Second ed. Oxford: Academic Press; 2017. p. 586–593.
   Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Brazier J, Ara R, et al. the role of condition-specific preference-based measures in health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(S1):33–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodwin E, Green C. A systematic review of the literature on the development of condition-specific preference-based measures of health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(2):161–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, et al. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(1):13–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin R, Charro F. EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):3015–3022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangwanrattanakul K, Parmontree P. Psychometric properties comparison between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in the general Thai population. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(12):3407–3417.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thavorncharoensap M, Sakthong P. Health utility. Pannarunothai S, Pilasant S, Saengsri W, et al. editors. The Guideline of Health Technology Assessment in Thailand Nonthaburi:Health Systems Research Institute; 2019. 77–94. (in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goni JM, et al., The EQ-5D-5L Valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(5): 551–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1142–1145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig BM, Pickard AS, Stolk E, et al. US valuation of the SF-6D. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(6):793–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virani S, Bilheem S, Chansaard W, et al. National and Subnational Population-Based Incidence of Cancer in Thailand: assessing Cancers with the Highest Burdens. Cancers (Basel). 2017;9(12):108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heydarnejad MS, Hassanpour DA, Solati DK. Factors affecting quality of life in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Afr Health Sci. 2011;11(2):266–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauer M, Bottomley A, Taphoorn MJB. Evaluating health-related quality of life and symptom burden in brain tumour patients: instruments for use in experimental trials and clinical practice. Curr Opin Neurol. 2008;21(6):745–753.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sosnowski R, Kulpa M, Ziętalewicz U, et al. Basic issues concerning health-related quality of life. Cent European J Urol. 2017;70(2):206–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, et al. A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(6):645–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katanyoo K, Thavorncharoensap M, Chaikledkaew U, et al., A comparison of six approaches for measuring utility values among patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;22(1): 107–117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Termrungruanglert W, Havanond P, Khemapech N, et al. Cost and effectiveness evaluation of prophylactic HPV vaccine in developing countries. Value Health. 2012;15(1):S29–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rongsriyam K, Tangjitgamol S, Leelahavarong P, et al. Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2020;64(6):873–881.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katanyoo K, Praditsitthikorn N, Tangjitgamol S, et al. Cost-utility analysis of treatments for stage IB cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2014;25(2):97–104.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Praditsitthikorn N. Cervical cancer screening in Thailand: a model‐based economic evaluation. J Health Syst Res. 2013;7:389–399 (in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Songtish D, Praditsitthikorn N, Teerawattananon Y. A cost-utility analysis comparing standard axillary lymph node dissection with sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early stage breast cancer in Thailand. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;3:59–66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kongsakon R, Lochid-Amnuay S, Kapol N, et al. From research to policy implementation: trastuzumab in early-stage breast cancer treatment in Thailand. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;18:47–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Limwattananon S, Limwattananon C, Maoleekulpairoj S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential paclitaxel adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with node positive primary breast cancer. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006;89(5):690–698.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thongprasert S, Permsuwan U, Ruengorn C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cisplatin plus etoposide and carboplatin plus paclitaxel in a phase III randomized trial for non-small cell lung cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2011;7(4):369–375.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thongprasert S, Tinmanee S, Permsuwan U. Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of gefitinib in second- line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer from Thai payer perspective. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2012;8(1):53–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Permsuwan U, Thongprasert S, Sirichanchuen B. Cost-utility analysis of first-line pemetrexed plus cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer in Thailand. Value Health Reg Issues. 2020;21:9–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Limwattananon C, Limwattananon S, Waleekhachonloet O, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of policy options on first-line treatments for advanced, non-small cell lung cancer in Thailand. Lung Cancer. 2018;120:91–97.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tongpak P, Thongprasert S, Permsuwan U. Cost-utility analysis of first-line regimen between cisplatin plus pemetrexed and carboplatin plus paclitaxel in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Thai J Pharm Sci. 2016;8:15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Inthawong T, Kessomboon N, Sookprasert A, et al. Economic evaluation of melatonin as adjuvant lung cancer treatment: a comparision of melatonin with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. Isan J Pharm Sci. 2015;11:133–139. (in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Kumdee C, Larbjaroen P, Malathong N, et al.Cost-utility of pemetrexed plus platinum- based for malignant pleural mesothelioma.Nonthaburi:Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program;2017.(in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Mothanathet S. Health related quality of life in terms of the utility of patient with non-small cell lung cancer and b-cell non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Khon Kaen:Khon Kaen universityi;2013. (in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Kulthanachairojana N, Chansriwong P, Thokanit NS, et al. Home-based chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients in Thailand: cost-utility and budget impact analyses. Cancer Med. 2021;10(3):1027–1033.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lerdkiattikorn P, Chaikledkaew U, Lausoontornsiri W, et al. Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):687–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katanyoo K, Chitapanarux I, Tungkasamit T, et al. Cost-utility analysis of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine for adjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;9(3):425–434.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phisalprapa P, Supakankunti S, Chaiyakunapruk N. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of colorectal cancer screenings in a low- and middle-income country: example from Thailand. J Med Econ. 2019;22(12):1351–1361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yindee N, Waleekhachonloet O. Utility assessment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer at Surin hospital. Thai J Pharm Prac. 2019;11(1):137–145. (in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Pattanaphesaj J, Kongkaew C, Sapprasert A, et al.Economic evaluation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable metastatic colorectal cancer in Thailand.Nonthaburi:Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program;2015.(in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Sangmala P, Chaikledkaew U, Tanwandee T, et al. Economic evaluation and budget impact analysis of the surveillance program for hepatocellular carcinoma in Thai chronic hepatitis B patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(20):8993–9004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wongphan T, Bundhamcharoen K. Health-related quality of life as measured by EQ-5D and TFLIC-2 in liver cancer patients. Siriraj Med J. 2018;70:406–412.
   Google Scholar
• Roongjangram W Cost-utility analysis of organized screening intervention for hepatocellular carcinoma in Thailand. Phitsanulok [master’s thesis]: Naresuan University; 2020. (in Thai)
   Google Scholar
• Khemapech N, Havanond P, Termrungruanglert W, et al. PIH18 quality of life in Thai women diagnosed with genital warts, cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hosipital. Value Health. 2010;13(7):A543.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, Linden HM, et al. Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: what are the potential benefits and policy implications? Genet Med. 2005;7(6):380–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornberger J, Kerrigan M, Foutel V. Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab (Herceptin) for treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:S52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee JH, Glick HA, Hayman JA, et al. Decision-analytic model and cost-effectiveness evaluation of postmastectomy radiation therapy in high-risk premenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(11):2713–2725.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Details of ERG adjustments to results of Roche submitted economic model. ERG addendum to manufacturers’model 2007 [cited 2010 4 Oct]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11714/39181.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP, et al. Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(26):2696–2704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, et al. Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(94):1650–1657.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong CK, Lam CL, Rowen D, et al. Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general or-colorectal to SF-6D in Chinese patients with colorectal neoplasm. Value Health. 2012;15(3):495–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chansriwong P, Sirilerttrakul S, Wannakansophon N, et al. Evaluation of quality of life, satisfaction and cost of care in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving ambulatory chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):6536.
   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(4):266–272.
   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(4):266–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CKH, Lam CLK, Rowen D, et al. Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general or– colorectal to SF-6D in Chinese Patients with Colorectal Neoplasm. Value Health. 2012;15(3):495–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumdee C, Kulpeng W, Teerawattananon Y. Cost-utility analysis of the screening program for early oral cancer detection in Thailand. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0207442.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paracha N, Abdulla A, MacGilchrist KS. Systematic review of health state utility values in metastatic non- small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pourrahmat -M-M, Kim A, Kansal AR, et al. Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review. Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22(8):1275–1288.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meregaglia M, Cairns J. A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Population Fact Sheets 2020 [cited 2022 Aug 7]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/764-thailand-fact-sheets.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jönsson B, et al. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1073–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(6):675–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu J, Yan -X-X, Liu C-C, et al. Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(3):841–854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Rowen D. NICE DSU technical support document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. 2017;36(1):675–697.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, et al. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339(3):b2688.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A, Grimm S, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21(1):49–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dongen Jm, Jornada Ben Â, Ben  J, et al. Assessing the impact of EQ-5D country-specific value sets on cost-utility outcomes. Med Care. 2021;59(1):82–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar