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.
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.
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
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: 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
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
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