» Articles » PMID: 17610339

The Use of Disease-specific Outcome Measures in Cost-utility Analysis: the Development of Dutch Societal Preference Weights for the FACT-L Scale

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2007 Jul 6
PMID 17610339
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a validated, sensitive and reliable patient questionnaire that evaluates and quantifies quality of life (QOL) across several domains, including lung cancer-related symptoms. The FACT-L was not designed for use in economic evaluation and does not incorporate preferences into its scoring system.

Objective: To derive a set of Dutch preference weights for FACT-L health states that can be used to convert FACT-L into a single value that can be used in cost-utility analyses.

Methods: A representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 1076) directly valued an orthogonal set of eight FACT-L health states on a 100-point rating scale with the anchor points 'worst imaginable health state' and 'best imaginable health state'. Eleven FACT-L items were selected to describe the FACT-L health states that were directly valued. Regression analysis was used to interpolate values for all other possible health states. Scores were transformed into values on a scale where 0 indicated dead and 1 indicated full health.

Results: The estimated values for FACT-L health states ranged from 0.08 to 0.93. The estimated value sets were applied to FACT-L data of lung cancer patients participating in a clinical study. Significant differences in the mean value and mean gain of 0.12 and 0.07, respectively, were found between patients in remission and patients with progressive disease at 4 weeks' follow-up.

Conclusion: Our results reaffirmed that the methodology used here is a feasible option to convert data collected with a disease-specific outcome measure into preferences. We concluded that the sensitivity of the derived set of societal preferences to capture differences and changes in clinical health states is an indication of its construct validity.

Citing Articles

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Community- and Choice-Based Health State Utility Values for Lung Cancer.

Blom E, Ten Haaf K, de Koning H Pharmacoeconomics. 2020; 38(11):1187-1200.

PMID: 32754857 PMC: 7547043. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00947-x.


A Patient-Centered Utility Index for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

Swan J, Lennes I, Stump N, Temel J, Wang D, Keller L MDM Policy Pract. 2018; 3(2):2381468318801565.

PMID: 30349874 PMC: 6194926. DOI: 10.1177/2381468318801565.


The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi Zouraq I Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35(Suppl 1):33-41.

PMID: 29052164 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0546-9.


A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE).

Xie F, Pickard A, Krabbe P, Revicki D, Viney R, Devlin N Pharmacoeconomics. 2015; 33(8):867-77.

PMID: 26026667 PMC: 4519579. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9.


Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial.

Klaver C, Musters G, Bemelman W, Punt C, Verwaal V, Dijkgraaf M BMC Cancer. 2015; 15:428.

PMID: 26003804 PMC: 4492087. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1430-7.


References
1.
Tester W, Jin P, Reardon D, COHN J, Cohen M . Phase II study of patients with metastatic nonsmall cell carcinoma of the lung treated with paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion. Cancer. 1997; 79(4):724-9. View

2.
Cella D, Eton D, Fairclough D, Bonomi P, Heyes A, Silberman C . What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55(3):285-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00477-2. View

3.
Chancellor J, Coyle D, Drummond M . Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: mission impossible?. Qual Life Res. 1997; 6(2):159-68. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026494218030. View

4.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M . The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002; 21(2):271-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8. View

5.
Brooks R . EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996; 37(1):53-72. DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. View