Health-state utility values in breast cancer

References

• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London, UK (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Valuation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care35(11), 1095–1108 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ.21, 271–292 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics7(8), 490–502 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health12(1), 159–166 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ.11(2), 215–225 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson MD, Oakley J, Chilcott JB. Gaussian process modeling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modeling: a case study describing the calculation of cost–effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis. Med. Decis. Making24(1), 89 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Hagerty CG, Speroff L, Speroff T. Costs and net health effects of contraceptive methods. Contraception69(6), 447–459 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hind D, Ward S, De Nigris E, Simpson E, Carrol C, Wyld L. Hormonal therapies for early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess.26(11), iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–134 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• McLernon DJ, Dillon J, Donnan PT. Systematic review: health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review. Med. Decis. Making28(4), 582 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bremner KE, Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SMH, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med. Decis. Making27(3), 288 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med. Decis. Making22, 475–481 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of quality-of-life estimates for stroke. Pharmacoeconomics21(3), 191–200 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liem YS, Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health11(4), 733–741 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Nooij MA, Noordijk EM, Kievit J. Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med. Decis. Making20(1), 62–71 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP et al. Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med. Decis. Making18(4), 391–399 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen SJT, Kievit J, Nooij MA, Stiggelbout AM. Stability of patients’ preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med. Decis. Making21(4), 295–306 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Ward S, Brazier J. A review and meta analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer. HEDS Discussion Paper Series X/10, University of Sheffield, UK (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Bernhard J, Zahrieh D, Coates AS et al. Quantifying trade-offs: quality of life and quality-adjusted survival in a randomised trial of chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer91(11), 1893–1901 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhard J, Zahrieh D, Zhang JJ et al. Quality of life and quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) in patients receiving dose-intensive or standard dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer98, 25–33 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonomi AE, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA et al. Quality of life valuations of mammography screening. Qual. Life Res.17(5), 801–814 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelli M, Surh L, Humphreys L et al. Measuring women’s preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual. Life Res.10(7), 595–607 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady BL, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, Jacobs P, Stewart D. A longitudinal prospective study of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant.36(3), 251–259 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cykert S, Phifer N, Hansen C. Tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: a framework for clinical decisions. Obstet. Gynecol.104(3), 433–442 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Haes JC, De Koning HJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Agt HM, de Bruyn AE, van der Maas PJ. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. Int. J. Cancer49(4), 538–544 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Koning HJ, Vanineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ et al. Breast-cancer screening and cost-effectiveness – policy alternatives, quality-of-life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int. J. Cancer49(4), 531–537 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon LG, Scuffham P, Battistutta D et al. A cost–effectiveness analysis of two rehabilitation support services for women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.94(2), 123–133 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, Antman KH, Neugut AI. Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA2-positive patients. J. Clin. Oncol.16(3), 979–985 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Sundararajan V, Albert SM, Troxel AB, Neugut AI. The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci. Am.5(5), 283–292 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayman JA, Fairclough DL, Harris JR, Weeks JC. Patient preferences concerning the trade-off between the risks and benefits of routine radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.15(3), 1252–1260 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayman JA, Kabeto MU, Schipper MJ, Bennett JE, Vicini FA, Pierce LJ. Assessing the benefit of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma-in-situ.J. Clin. Oncol.23(22), 5171–5177 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen SJ, Otten W, van de Velde CJ, Nortier JW, Stiggelbout AM. The impact of the perception of treatment choice on satisfaction with treatment, experienced chemotherapy burden and current quality of life. Br. J. Cancer91(1), 56–61 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Lambin P, Boersma LJ. Responsiveness of the EQ-5 D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health Qual. Life Outcomes7(1), 11 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jonsson B, Rehnberg C. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual. Life Res.16, 1073–1081 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Barnabi F, Whelan T, Goldsmith CH. The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Qual. Life Res.17(2), 333–345 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansel R, Locker G, Fallowfield L, Benedict A, Jones D. Cost–effectiveness analysis of anastrozole vs tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer in the United Kingdom: the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial. Br. J. Cancer97(2), 152–161 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namjoshi MA, Taylor TN, Brooks J, Hohl R. Relationship between utility scores and disease-specific quality of life measures in a breast cancer population. Med. Decis. Making18(4), 470 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Polsky D, Keating NL, Weeks JC et al. Patient choice of breast cancer treatment: impact on health state preferences. Med. Care40(11), 1068–1079 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, Williams LJ et al. A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk older population. The PRIME trial. Health Technol. Assess.11(31), 1 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J. Chronic Dis.31(697), 704 (1978).
   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.21(12), 1253–1260 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorensen SV, Brown R, Benedict A, Flood E, Revicki D. Patient-rated utilities in postmenopausal early breast cancer (EBC): a cross-country comparison. Value Health7(6), 641 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker M, de Jonge PV, Doyle S, Farina C. Elicitation of UK health utilities in primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol.17, 81–82 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Wolowacz SE, Cameron DA, Tate HC, Bagust A. Docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early node-positive breast cancer: a cost–effectiveness and cost–utility analysis. J. Clin. Oncol.26(6), 925 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser R, Theriault R, Cantor S et al. Utilities of metastatic breast cancer patients (pt) treated with taxanes compared to utilities of oncology nurses (nur). Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol.20, (2001) (Abstract 164).
   Google Scholar
• Hurny C, van Wegberg B, Bacchi M et al. Subjective health estimations (SHE) in patients with advanced breast cancer: an adapted utility concept for clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer77(6), 985–991 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutton J, Brown R, Borowitz M, Abrams K, Rothman M, Shakespeare A. A new decision model for cost–utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics9, 8–22 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Launois R, Reboul Marty J, Henry B, Bonneterre J. A cost–utility analysis of second-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer – docetaxel versus paclitaxel versus vinorelbine. Pharmacoeconomics10(5), 504–521 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, Dewilde S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer95(6), 683–690 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.54(3), 213–223 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne RJ, Heaton-Brown KH, Hansen P et al. Quality-of-life valuations of advanced breast cancer by New Zealand women. Pharmacoeconomics24(3), 281–292 (2006).
   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 Outcomes5, 70 (2007).
   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 Health10(3), A5 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A. Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics19(11), 1091–1102 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RE, Hutton J. Cost–utility model comparing docetaxel and paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer patients. Anticancer Drugs9(10), 899–907 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearney N, Brown R, Rothman M. Utility measures in cancer care. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs.3(3), 192–196 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Dranitsaris G, Hsu T. Cost utility analysis of prophylactic pamidronate for the prevention of skeletal related events in patients with advanced breast cancer. Support Care Cancer7(4), 271–279 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dranitsaris G, Leung P, Mather J et al. Cost–utility analysis of second-line hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: a comparison of two aromatase inhibitors to megestrol acetate. Anticancer Drugs11(7), 591–601 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung PP, Tannock IF, Oza AM, Puodziunas A, Dranitsaris G. Cost–utility analysis of chemotherapy using paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinorelbine for patients with anthracycline-resistant breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.17(10), 3082–3090 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunberg SM, Boutin N, Ireland A, Miner S, Silveira J, Ashikaga T. Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score. Support Care Cancer4(6), 435–439 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerard K, Dobson M, Hall J. Framing and labeling effects in health descriptions – quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast-cancer. J. Clin. Epidemiol.46(1), 77–84 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc. Sci. Med.34(9), 993–1004 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nafees B, Stafford M, Bhalla S. Health utilities in the UK for second line non-small cell lung cancer. Value Health9, 296 (2006).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ, Moncur MM, Ettinger B, Tosteson ANA. Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med. Decis. Making19(2), 141 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franic DM, Pathak DS, Gafni A. Are health states ‘timeless’? A case study of an acute condition: post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting. J. Eval. Clin. Pract.9(1), 69–82 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polsky D, Mandelblatt JS, Weeks JC et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer treatment: considering the value of patient choice. J. Clin. Oncol.21(6), 1139–1146 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez DJ, Williams SM, Christensen EA, McGee RO, Campbell AV. A longitudinal study of health related quality of life and utility measures in patients with advanced breast cancer. Qual. Life Res.10(7), 587–593 (2001).
   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. Stroke32(6), 1425–1429 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients’ well-being and consequent effect on a cost–effectiveness analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol.45(5), 505 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, Bombardier C, McGeer A. Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Values and Long-Term Care. Kane RL (Ed.). Lexington Books, MA, USA (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ. Planning Sci.10(3), 129–136 (1976).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, Weeks JC. Evidence for a possible plateau relationship comparison of time-tradeoff utilities and rating scale values of cancer patients and their relatives. Med. Decis. Making15, 132–137 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, Sleep D. Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health10(5), 408–414 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie L, van de Pol M. Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health12(1), 167–171 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard S, Lai J-S, Nickolov A. Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general. Value Health10(4), 266–272 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garau M, Shah K, Towse A, Wang Q, Drummond M, Mason A. Assessment and Appraisal of Oncology Medicines: Does NICE’s Approach Include all Relevant Elements? What Can be Learnt from International HTA Experiences? Pharmaceutical Oncology Initiative (POI), Office of Health Economics, London, UK (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, Hind D, Rees A, Wilkinson A. Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess.11(40), 1–144 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis Int.13(10), 768–776 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE. An updated systematic review of Health State Utility Values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporosis Int.20(6), 853–868 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady B, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM et al. Responsiveness of the EuroQol in breast cancer patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy. Qual. Life Res.10(6), 479–486 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerard K, Johnston K, Brown J. The role of a pre-scored multi-attribute health classification measure in validating condition-specific health state descriptions. Health Econ.8(8), 685–699 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston K, Brown J, Gerard K, O’Hanlon M, Morton A. Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc. Sci. Med.47(2), 213–222 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isogai PK, Mittmann N, Bordeleau LJ. Health preference instruments in a breast cancer population: is there a ceiling effect when compared to the quality-of-life instruments? J. Clin. Oncol.26(Suppl.), 2008 (2008) (Abstract 6597).
   Google Scholar
• Ko CY, Maggard M, Livingston EH. Evaluating health utility in patients with melanoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer: a nationwide, population-based assessment. J. Surg. Res.114(1), 1–5 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ossa DF, Briggs A, McIntosh E, Cowell W, Littlewood T, Sculpher M. Recombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia: economic value and health-related quality-of-life assessment using direct utility elicitation and discrete choice experiment methods. Pharmacoeconomics25(3), 223 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rijnsburger AJ, Essink-Bot ML, van Dooren S et al. Impact of screening for breast cancer in high-risk women on health-related quality of life. Br. J. Cancer91(1), 69–76 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shih YCT, Wang XS, Cantor SB, Cleeland CS. The association between symptom burdens and utility in Chinese cancer patients. Qual. Life Res.15(8), 1427–1438 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locker GY, Mansel R, Cella D, Dobrez D, Sorensen S, Gandhi SK. Cost–effectiveness analysis of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as primary adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: a US healthcare system perspective. The 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.106(2), 229–238 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratmann-Schoene D. A preference-based index for the SF-12. Health Econ.15(6), 553–564 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Care43(7), 736–740 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yabroff KR, Lawrence WF, Clauser S, Davis WW, Brown ML. Burden of illness in cancer survivors: findings from a population-based national sample. J. Natl Cancer Inst.96(17), 1322–1330 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yabroff KR, McNeel TS, Waldron WR et al. Health limitations and quality of life associated with cancer and other chronic diseases by phase of care. Med. Care45(7), 629 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics26(9), 769–779 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar