Norma B Bulamu1, Gang Chen2,3, Julie Ratcliffe4, Ann Schloite5, Tim Bright5, David I Watson1,5. 1. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5041, Australia. 2. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5041, Australia. gang.chen@flinders.au. 3. Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. gang.chen@flinders.au. 4. Institute of Choice, Business School, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Discipline of Surgery, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which can be applied to economic evaluation in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal cancer is limited. This study derived health state utilities for various 'stages' of BE and Cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted, including patients with non-dysplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or esophageal adenocarcinoma. HRQoL was assessed using generic instruments-EQ-5D-5L and SF-36, and a cancer-specific instrument-EORTC QLQ-C30. Outcomes were compared for health states following different treatments. Correlations and agreements for the three instruments were investigated using Spearman's correlation coefficient (r) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: A total of 97 respondents (80% male, mean age 68 years) returned questionnaires. The mean (standard deviation) health state utilities for the total sample were 0.79 (0.24) for the EQ-5D-5L, 0.57 (0.29) for the SF-6D (derived from SF-36) and 0.73 (0.20) for the QLU-C10D (derived from EORTC QLQ-C30). There were strong correlations (r > 0.80) and absolute agreement (except EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D with an ICC of 0.69) among the three instruments. No significant differences were observed for different stages of BE or interventions. However, following surgery for cancer patients reported better psychological well-being than those under surveillance or following endoscopic treatments. CONCLUSION: HRQoL for BE surveillance and following cancer treatment was similar. Esophagectomy was associated with better psychological functioning, and this might be attributed to a reduction in the perceived risk of cancer. The correlation between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the other health state utility instruments supports the validity of this new instrument.
BACKGROUND: Research assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which can be applied to economic evaluation in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal cancer is limited. This study derived health state utilities for various 'stages' of BE and Cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted, including patients with non-dysplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or esophageal adenocarcinoma. HRQoL was assessed using generic instruments-EQ-5D-5L and SF-36, and a cancer-specific instrument-EORTC QLQ-C30. Outcomes were compared for health states following different treatments. Correlations and agreements for the three instruments were investigated using Spearman's correlation coefficient (r) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: A total of 97 respondents (80% male, mean age 68 years) returned questionnaires. The mean (standard deviation) health state utilities for the total sample were 0.79 (0.24) for the EQ-5D-5L, 0.57 (0.29) for the SF-6D (derived from SF-36) and 0.73 (0.20) for the QLU-C10D (derived from EORTC QLQ-C30). There were strong correlations (r > 0.80) and absolute agreement (except EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D with an ICC of 0.69) among the three instruments. No significant differences were observed for different stages of BE or interventions. However, following surgery for cancerpatients reported better psychological well-being than those under surveillance or following endoscopic treatments. CONCLUSION: HRQoL for BE surveillance and following cancer treatment was similar. Esophagectomy was associated with better psychological functioning, and this might be attributed to a reduction in the perceived risk of cancer. The correlation between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the other health state utility instruments supports the validity of this new instrument.
Authors: Christian A Gutschow; Arnulf H Hölscher; Jessica Leers; Hans Fuchs; Marc Bludau; Klaus L Prenzel; E Bollschweiler; Wolfgang Schröder Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephan M Wildi; Monty H Cox; Leslie L Clark; Robert Turner; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Michael B Wallace Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Marlene Malmström; Rosemarie Klefsgard; Bodil Ivarsson; Maria Roman; Jan Johansson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Madeleine T King; Rosalie Viney; A Simon Pickard; Donna Rowen; Neil K Aaronson; John E Brazier; David Cella; Daniel S J Costa; Peter M Fayers; Georg Kemmler; Helen McTaggart-Cowen; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Stuart Peacock; Deborah J Street; Tracey A Young; Richard Norman Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Michelle E Kruijshaar; Dirk J Bac; Pieter J Wismans; Frank ter Borg; Ewout W Steyerberg; Peter D Siersema Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-07-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mirjam C M van der Ende-van Loon; A Stoker; P T Nieuwkerk; W L Curvers; E J Schoon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 3.440