OBJECTIVES: (1) To define a set of health state descriptions related to screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and toxicities relevant to ovarian cancer; (2) To derive a set of quality of life-related utilities to be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive list of health states was developed to represent the experiences of diagnostic testing for ovarian cancer, natural history of ovarian cancer (e.g., newly diagnosed early stage ovarian cancer, recurrent progressive ovarian cancer) and the most common chemotherapy-related toxicities (e.g. alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, pain, neutropenia, fatigue). Valuation of each health state was obtained through individual interviews of 13 ovarian cancer patients and 37 female members of the general public. Interviews employed visual analog score (VAS) and time trade off (TTO) methods of health state valuation. RESULTS: Mean TTO-derived utilities were higher than VAS-derived utilities by 0.118 U (p<0.0001). Mean VAS-derived utilities for screening tests were 0.83 and 0.81 for true negative blood test and ultrasound; 0.79 and 0.78 for false negative blood test and ultrasound, respectively. Patients and volunteers generally agreed in their preference ranking of chemotherapy-associated states, with lowest rankings being given to febrile neutropenia, grades 3-4 fatigue, and grades 3-4 nausea/vomiting. For 55% of chemotherapy-associated health states, the average utility assigned was higher for patients than for volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes societal preferences for a number of health states related to screening, diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer that can be used for assessing the cost-effectiveness of different ovarian cancer screening and treatment regimens.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To define a set of health state descriptions related to screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and toxicities relevant to ovarian cancer; (2) To derive a set of quality of life-related utilities to be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive list of health states was developed to represent the experiences of diagnostic testing for ovarian cancer, natural history of ovarian cancer (e.g., newly diagnosed early stage ovarian cancer, recurrent progressive ovarian cancer) and the most common chemotherapy-related toxicities (e.g. alopecia, peripheral neuropathy, pain, neutropenia, fatigue). Valuation of each health state was obtained through individual interviews of 13 ovarian cancerpatients and 37 female members of the general public. Interviews employed visual analog score (VAS) and time trade off (TTO) methods of health state valuation. RESULTS: Mean TTO-derived utilities were higher than VAS-derived utilities by 0.118 U (p<0.0001). Mean VAS-derived utilities for screening tests were 0.83 and 0.81 for true negative blood test and ultrasound; 0.79 and 0.78 for false negative blood test and ultrasound, respectively. Patients and volunteers generally agreed in their preference ranking of chemotherapy-associated states, with lowest rankings being given to febrile neutropenia, grades 3-4 fatigue, and grades 3-4 nausea/vomiting. For 55% of chemotherapy-associated health states, the average utility assigned was higher for patients than for volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes societal preferences for a number of health states related to screening, diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer that can be used for assessing the cost-effectiveness of different ovarian cancer screening and treatment regimens.
Authors: Charlotte C Sun; Diane C Bodurka; Candice B Weaver; Rafia Rasu; Judith K Wolf; Michael W Bevers; Judith A Smith; J Taylor Wharton; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gil Mor; Irene Visintin; Yinglei Lai; Hongyu Zhao; Peter Schwartz; Thomas Rutherford; Luo Yue; Patricia Bray-Ward; David C Ward Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kristine A Donovan; Paul G Greene; John L Shuster; Edward E Partridge; Diane C Tucker Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: E A Calhoun; C L Bennett; P A Peeples; J R Lurain; P Y Roland; J M Weinstein; D A Fishman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Elizabeth A Calhoun; David A Fishman; John R Lurain; Emily E Welshman; Charles L Bennett Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Arthur-Quan Tran; Daniel O Erim; Stephanie A Sullivan; Ashley L Cole; Emma L Barber; Kenneth H Kim; Paola A Gehrig; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Akila Subramaniam; Brett D Einerson; Christina T Blanchard; Britt K Erickson; Jeff Szychowski; Charles A Leath; Joseph R Biggio; Warner K Huh Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Charlotte Sun; Alaina J Brown; Anuja Jhingran; Michael Frumovitz; Lois Ramondetta; Diane C Bodurka Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Ashley L Cole; Emma L Barber; Anagha Gogate; Arthur-Quan Tran; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Dana M Chase; Helen Huang; Cassandra D Foss; Lari B Wenzel; Bradley J Monk; Robert A Burger Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 5.482