Angela C Tramontano1, Deborah L Schrag2,3, Jennifer K Malin4, Melecia C Miller1, Jane C Weeks2, J Shannon Swan1,3, Pamela M McMahon1,3. 1. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (ACT, MCM, JSS, PMM) 2. Dna-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (DLS, JCW) 3. Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (DLS, JSS, PMM). 4. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA (JKM)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D and SF-6D are 2 health-related quality-of-life indexes that provide preference-weighted measures for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium included the EQ-5D and SF-12v2 in their survey of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. Utilities were calculated from patient-provided scores for each domain of the EQ-5D or the SF-6D. Utilities were calculated for categories of cancer type, stage, and treatment. RESULTS: There were 5015 enrolled lung cancer patients with a baseline survey in CanCORS; 2396 (47.8%) completed the EQ-5D, and 2344 (46.7%) also completed the SF-12v2. The mean (standard deviation) utility from the EQ-5D was 0.78 (0.18), and from the SF-6D (derived from SF-12v2) was 0.68 (0.14). The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect, with 20% of patients reporting perfect scores, translating to a utility of 1.0. No substantial SF-6D floor effects were noted. Utilities increased with age and decreased with stage and comorbidities. Patient-reported (EQ-5D) visual analog scale scores for health status had a moderate (r = 0.48, p < 0.0001) positive correlation with utilities. A subset (n = 1474) completed follow-up EQ-5D questionnaires 11-13 months after diagnosis. Among these patients, there was a nonsignificant decrease in mean utility for stage IV and an increase in mean utility for stages I, II, and III. CONCLUSION: This study generated a catalog of community-weighted utilities applicable to societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer interventions and compared utilities based on the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Potential users of these scores should be aware of the limitations and think carefully about their use in specific studies.
BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D and SF-6D are 2 health-related quality-of-life indexes that provide preference-weighted measures for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium included the EQ-5D and SF-12v2 in their survey of newly diagnosed lung cancerpatients. Utilities were calculated from patient-provided scores for each domain of the EQ-5D or the SF-6D. Utilities were calculated for categories of cancer type, stage, and treatment. RESULTS: There were 5015 enrolled lung cancerpatients with a baseline survey in CanCORS; 2396 (47.8%) completed the EQ-5D, and 2344 (46.7%) also completed the SF-12v2. The mean (standard deviation) utility from the EQ-5D was 0.78 (0.18), and from the SF-6D (derived from SF-12v2) was 0.68 (0.14). The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect, with 20% of patients reporting perfect scores, translating to a utility of 1.0. No substantial SF-6D floor effects were noted. Utilities increased with age and decreased with stage and comorbidities. Patient-reported (EQ-5D) visual analog scale scores for health status had a moderate (r = 0.48, p < 0.0001) positive correlation with utilities. A subset (n = 1474) completed follow-up EQ-5D questionnaires 11-13 months after diagnosis. Among these patients, there was a nonsignificant decrease in mean utility for stage IV and an increase in mean utility for stages I, II, and III. CONCLUSION: This study generated a catalog of community-weighted utilities applicable to societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer interventions and compared utilities based on the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Potential users of these scores should be aware of the limitations and think carefully about their use in specific studies.
Authors: Steven D Criss; Meghan J Mooradian; Deirdre F Sheehan; Leyre Zubiri; Melissa A Lumish; Justin F Gainor; Kerry L Reynolds; Chung Yin Kong Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Iakovos Toumazis; Koen de Nijs; Pianpian Cao; Mehrad Bastani; Vidit Munshi; Kevin Ten Haaf; Jihyoun Jeon; G Scott Gazelle; Eric J Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Rafael Meza; Chung Yin Kong; Summer S Han; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 33.006
Authors: Duc Ha; Jacqueline Kerr; Andrew L Ries; Mark M Fuster; Scott M Lippman; James D Murphy Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Christopher J Cadham; Pianpian Cao; Jinani Jayasekera; Kathryn L Taylor; David T Levy; Jihyoun Jeon; Elena B Elkin; Kristie L Foley; Anne Joseph; Chung Yin Kong; Jennifer A Minnix; Nancy A Rigotti; Benjamin A Toll; Steven B Zeliadt; Rafael Meza; Jeanne Mandelblatt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Steven D Criss; Lauren Palazzo; Tina R Watson; Adelle M Paquette; Keith Sigel; Juan Wisnivesky; Chung Yin Kong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wade P Smith; Patrick J Richard; Jing Zeng; Smith Apisarnthanarax; Ramesh Rengan; Mark H Phillips Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2018-04