Literature DB >> 17645681

Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy - general.

Deborah Dobrez1, David Cella, A Simon Pickard, Jin-Shei Lai, Angel Nickolov.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to estimate an algorithm to convert responses to the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) to time trade-off (TTO) utilities based on utilities for current health elicited from cancer patients.
METHODS: Data for 1433 cancer patients were randomly separated into construction and validation samples. Four FACT-G questions were selected for inclusion based on correlation with Eastern Clinical Oncology Group - Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scores and TTO utilities. Item response theory was used to collapse response categories. Ordinary least squares regression with the constant constrained to one was used to estimate the algorithm.
RESULTS: The algorithm estimated mean utility for the full validation sample within three points of observed mean utility (0.805 vs. 0.832, P < 0.01). Mean utilities were well predicted (mean absolute difference < 0.03, P > 0.05) for most subgroups defined by ECOG-PS and Short Form-36 physical functioning scores, and responses to the FACT-G overall quality of life item. Nevertheless, the algorithm systematically overpredicted utilities for poorer health states.
CONCLUSIONS: A FACT-G-based algorithm of cancer patient utilities was developed that estimates group mean utility scores with accuracy comparable to other indirect preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Patient-based preferences for health outcomes of cancer treatment may be useful in multiple situations, such as managing resources within cancer centers and in understanding health states preferences among cancer experienced patients before and after treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17645681     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00181.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  22 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures.

Authors:  Fang-Ju Lin; Louise Longworth; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Spiritual Well-Being in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Survivors of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

Authors:  Patricia Prince; Sandra A Mitchell; Leslie Wehrlen; Richard Childs; Bipin Savani; Li Yang; Margaret Bevans
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2015

Review 3.  Good practice guidelines for the use of statistical regression models in economic evaluations.

Authors:  Ben Kearns; Roberta Ara; Allan Wailoo; Andrea Manca; Monica Hernández Alava; Keith Abrams; Mike Campbell
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises.

Authors:  Janel Hanmer; David Cella; David Feeny; Baruch Fischhoff; Ron D Hays; Rachel Hess; Paul A Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Mark Roberts; Joel Tsevat; Lan Yu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Nalin Payakachat; Kent H Summers; Andreas M Pleil; Matthew M Murawski; Joseph Thomas; Kristofer Jennings; James G Anderson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-06-19       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Mapping the eight-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index.

Authors:  Y B Cheung; L C S Tan; P N Lau; W L Au; N Luo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis.

Authors:  Graeme Hawthorne; Konstancja Densley; Julie F Pallant; Duncan Mortimer; Leonie Segal
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.

Authors:  Martina Garau; Koonal K Shah; Anne R Mason; Qing Wang; Adrian Towse; Michael F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cost-Effectiveness of Lapatinib plus Letrozole in Post-Menopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-and HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Thomas E Delea; Carol Hawkes; Mayur M Amonkar; Konstantinos Lykopoulos; Stephen R D Johnston
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  Measurement accuracy in assessing patient's quality of life: to weight or not to weight domains of quality of life.

Authors:  Errol J Philip; Thomas V Merluzzi; Amy Peterman; Lisa B Cronk
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.