Literature DB >> 7679324

Quality of life assessment for cost/utility studies in cancer.

R M Kaplan1.   

Abstract

The goals of cancer treatment and cancer prevention are to extend life expectancy and to improve quality of life in the years prior to death. Typically, outcomes of cancer treatment are evaluated in terms of survival time. Although quality of life is often measured, interpretation of these outcomes in relation to mortality is difficult. Survival analysis places each individual into one of two categories: alive or dead. Among those alive, all individuals are considered equivalent. Thus, a patient confined to bed with severe symptoms is scored the same as someone who is active and asymptomatic. A General Health Policy Model is proposed as a solution to this problem. The model adjusts life expectancy for diminished quality of life, which is measured using a standardized instrument known as the Quality of Well-being (QWB) scale. The model expresses the effect of treatment in a unit known as a Well-Year or Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). These units integrate side-effects and benefits of treatment by combining into a single number, mortality, morbidity, and duration of each health state. Similar methods, such as the Q-TWiST, have been proposed for use in cancer clinical trials. However, the Q-TWiST is a subset of the more general model and carries limitations for cross-disease comparisons. We conclude that general health outcome models can be of considerable value for analysing the costs, risks and benefits of cancer therapies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 7679324     DOI: 10.1016/0305-7372(93)90061-u

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev        ISSN: 0305-7372            Impact factor:   12.111


  15 in total

Review 1.  Benefit valuation in economic evaluation of cancer therapies. A systematic review of the published literature.

Authors:  J Brown; M Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Oncologists' use of quality of life information: results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians.

Authors:  A Bezjak; P Ng; R Skeel; A D Depetrillo; R Comis; K M Taylor
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  High technology drugs for cancer: the decision process for adding to a formulary.

Authors:  J L Glennie; D M Woloschuk; K W Hall
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Measuring the effect of cancer on health-related quality of life.

Authors:  D Osoba
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Endpoints in cancer clinical trials: is there a need for measuring quality of life?

Authors:  R Feld
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 6.  Systemic therapy in breast cancer: efficacy and cost utility.

Authors:  J F Corry; P E Lønning
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Appraising the economic efficiency of cancer treatment: an exploratory analysis of lung cancer.

Authors:  Thomas N Chirikos
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2003-05

8.  Cost-effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery.

Authors:  Scott D Ramsey; Sean D Sullivan; Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Proc Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2008-05-01

9.  The role of NETT in emphysema research.

Authors:  Robert A Wise; M Bradley Drummond
Journal:  Proc Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2008-05-01

Review 10.  Health-related quality of life in emphysema.

Authors:  Robert M Kaplan; Andrew L Ries
Journal:  Proc Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2008-05-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.