Literature DB >> 21669383

Utility scores and treatment preferences for clinical early-stage cervical cancer.

Elizabeth L Jewell1, Michael Smrtka, Gloria Broadwater, Fidel Valea, Debra M Davis, Kimberly C Nolte, Renea Valea, Evan R Myers, Gregory Samsa, Laura J Havrilesky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine utility scores for health states relevant to the treatment of early-stage, high-risk cervical cancer.
METHODS: Seven descriptive health states incorporating the physical and emotional aspects of medical treatment, recovery, and prognosis were developed. Forty-five female volunteers valuated each health state using the visual analogue score (VAS) and time trade off (TTO) methods. Treatment options were ranked by mean and median TTO scores. The 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine the statistical significance of ranking preferences. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare central tendencies related to age, race, parity, and subject history of abnormal cervical cytology.
RESULTS: VAS and TTO scores were highly correlated. Volunteers ranked minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with low-risk features as most preferred (mean TTO = 0.96; median TTO = 1.00) and aborted radical hysterectomy followed by chemoradiation as least preferred (mean TTO = 0.69; median TTO = 0.83). Health states that included radical surgery were ranked higher than those that included chemoradiation, either in the adjuvant or primary setting. When survival was comparable, volunteers rated radical hysterectomy with high-risk pathology followed by adjuvant chemoradiation (mean TTO = 0.78; median TTO = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87) similarly to chemoradiation alone (mean TTO = 0.76; median TTO 0.90; 95% CI: 0.66-0.86; p = NS). Utility scores for the majority of health states were not significantly associated with age, race, parity, or subject history of abnormal cervical cytology.
CONCLUSION: Subjects consistently preferred surgical excision to treat early-stage, high-risk cervical cancer and chose a minimally invasive approach. Such utility scores can be used to incorporate quality-of-life effects into comparative-effectiveness models for cervical cancer.
Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21669383     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.017

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


  11 in total

1.  Women's Preferences Regarding the Processes and Outcomes of Trial of Labor After Cesarean and Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery.

Authors:  Anjali J Kaimal; William A Grobman; Allison S Bryant; Laura Norrell; Yamilee Bermingham; Anna Altshuler; Mari-Paule Thiet; Juan Gonzalez; Peter Bacchetti; Michelle Moghadassi; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Patient preferences for side effects associated with cervical cancer treatment.

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

3.  Cost-effectiveness of para-aortic lymphadenectomy before chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jung Yun Lee; Younhee Kim; Tae Jin Lee; Yong Woo Jeon; Kidong Kim; Hyun Hoon Chung; Hak Jae Kim; Sang Min Park; Jae Weon Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 4.401

4.  Estimation of utility weights for human papilloma virus-related health states according to disease severity.

Authors:  Minsu Ock; Jeong-Yeol Park; Woo-Seung Son; Hyeon-Jeong Lee; Seon-Ha Kim; Min-Woo Jo
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  Preferences of German melanoma patients for interferon (IFN) α-2b toxicities (the DeCOG "GERMELATOX survey") versus melanoma recurrence to quantify patients' relative values for adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Katharina C Kaehler; Christine Blome; Andrea Forschner; Ralf Gutzmer; Thomas Haalck; Lucie Heinzerling; Thomas Kornek; Elisabeth Livingstone; Carmen Loquai; Lara Valeska Maul; Berenice M Lang; Dirk Schadendorf; Barbara Stade; Patrick Terheyden; Jochen Utikal; Tobias Wagner; Axel Hauschild; Claus Garbe; Matthias Augustin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diagnostic Tests for Para-Aortic Lymph Node Detection in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Kanyarat Katanyoo; Usa Chaikledkaew; Montarat Thavorncharoensap; Arthorn Riewpaiboon
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2021-11-22

7.  Population-based utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women.

Authors:  Xiangqun Ju; Karen Canfell; Kirsten Howard; Gail Garvey; Joanne Hedges; Megan Smith; Lisa Jamieson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Utilities associated with subcutaneous injections and intravenous infusions for treatment of patients with bone metastases.

Authors:  Louis S Matza; Ze Cong; Karen Chung; Alison Stopeck; Katia Tonkin; Janet Brown; Ada Braun; Kate Van Brunt; Kelly McDaniel
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 2.711

9.  Is the routine use of bevacizumab in the treatment of women with advanced or recurrent cancer of the cervix sustainable?

Authors:  Natalie Klag; Adam C Walter; Kristen M Sheely; Kelly J Manahan; John P Geisler
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2016-06-21

10.  Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C.

Authors:  Louis S Matza; Sandhya J Sapra; John F Dillon; Anupama Kalsekar; Evan W Davies; Mary K Devine; Jessica B Jordan; Amanda S Landrian; David H Feeny
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.