Rachel Houten1, Nigel Fleeman2, Eleanor Kotas2,3, Angela Boland2, Tosin Lambe2, Rui Duarte2. 1. Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, 2.06 Whelan Building, The Quadrangle, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK. rehouten@liverpool.ac.uk. 2. Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, 2.06 Whelan Building, The Quadrangle, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK. 3. York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health state utility values are commonly used to inform economic evaluations and determine the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the utility values available to represent the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1999 to April 2019 for studies which included assessment of HRQoL for patients with thyroid cancer. Utility estimates derived from multiple sources (EuroQol questionnaire 5-dimension (EQ-5D), time trade-off [TTO] and standard gamble [SG] methods) were extracted. In addition, utility estimates were generated by mapping from SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-30 to the EQ-5D-3L UK value set using published mapping algorithms. RESULTS: Searches identified 33 eligible studies. Twenty-six studies reported HRQoL for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and seven studies for patients with general thyroid cancer. We identified studies which used different methods and tools to quantify the HRQoL in patients with thyroid cancer, such as the EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, EORTC QLQ-30 and SG and TTO techniques to estimate utility values. Utility estimates range from 0.205 (patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer) to utility values approximate to the average UK population (following successful thyroidectomy surgery and radioiodine treatment). Utility estimates for different health states, across thyroid cancer sub-types and interventions are presented. CONCLUSION: A catalogue of utility values is provided for use when carrying out economic modelling of thyroid cancer; by including mapped values, this approach broadens the scope of health states that can be considered within cost-effectiveness modelling.
PURPOSE: Health state utility values are commonly used to inform economic evaluations and determine the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the utility values available to represent the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with thyroid cancer. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1999 to April 2019 for studies which included assessment of HRQoL for patients with thyroid cancer. Utility estimates derived from multiple sources (EuroQol questionnaire 5-dimension (EQ-5D), time trade-off [TTO] and standard gamble [SG] methods) were extracted. In addition, utility estimates were generated by mapping from SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-30 to the EQ-5D-3L UK value set using published mapping algorithms. RESULTS: Searches identified 33 eligible studies. Twenty-six studies reported HRQoL for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and seven studies for patients with general thyroid cancer. We identified studies which used different methods and tools to quantify the HRQoL in patients with thyroid cancer, such as the EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, EORTC QLQ-30 and SG and TTO techniques to estimate utility values. Utility estimates range from 0.205 (patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer) to utility values approximate to the average UK population (following successful thyroidectomy surgery and radioiodine treatment). Utility estimates for different health states, across thyroid cancer sub-types and interventions are presented. CONCLUSION: A catalogue of utility values is provided for use when carrying out economic modelling of thyroid cancer; by including mapped values, this approach broadens the scope of health states that can be considered within cost-effectiveness modelling.
Authors: John Brazier; Roberta Ara; Ismail Azzabi; Jan Busschbach; Hélène Chevrou-Séverac; Bruce Crawford; Luciane Cruz; John Karnon; Andrew Lloyd; Suzy Paisley; A Simon Pickard Journal: Value Health Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Mick Arber; Sonia Garcia; Thomas Veale; Mary Edwards; Alison Shaw; Julie M Glanville Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Carlo La Vecchia; Matteo Malvezzi; Cristina Bosetti; Werner Garavello; Paola Bertuccio; Fabio Levi; Eva Negri Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Petros Perros; Kristien Boelaert; Steve Colley; Carol Evans; Rhordi M Evans; Georgina Gerrard Ba; Jackie Gilbert; Barney Harrison; Sarah J Johnson; Thomas E Giles; Laura Moss; Val Lewington; Kate Newbold; Judith Taylor; Rajesh V Thakker; John Watkinson; Graham R Williams Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.478