Estimation of Population-based Utility Weights for Gastric Cancer-related Health States

Overview

Journal Patient Prefer Adherence

Date 2018 Jun 7

PMID 29872276

Citations 8

Authors

Hyeon-Jeong Lee

Minsu Ock

Kyu-Pyo Kim

Min-Woo Jo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to generate utility weights of gastric cancer-related health states from the perspective of the Korean general population.

Methods: The Korean adults (age ≥19 years) included in the study were sampled using multistage quota sampling methods stratified by sex, age, and education level. Nine scenarios for hypothetical gastric cancer-related health states were developed and reviewed. After consenting to participate, the subjects were surveyed by trained interviewers using a computer-assisted personal interview method. Participants were asked to perform standard gamble tasks to measure the utility weights of 5 randomly assigned health states (from among nine scenarios). The mean utility weight was calculated for each health state.

Results: Three hundred twenty-six of the 407 adults who completed this study were included in the analysis. The mean utility weights from the standard gamble were 0.857 (no gastric cancer with infection), 0.773 (early gastric cancer [EGC] with endoscopic surgery), 0.779 (EGC with subtotal gastrectomy), 0.767 (EGC with total gastrectomy), 0.602 (advanced gastric cancer with subtotal gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy), 0.643 (advanced gastric cancer with total gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy), 0.522 (advanced gastric cancer with extended gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy), 0.404 (metastatic gastric cancer with palliative chemotherapy), and 0.399 (recurrent gastric cancer with palliative chemotherapy).

Conclusion: This study was the first to comprehensively estimate the utility weights of gastric cancer-related health states in a general population. The utility weights derived from this study could be useful for future economic evaluations related to gastric cancer interventions.

Citing Articles

Cost Utility Analysis of National Cancer Screening Program for Gastric Cancer in Korea: A Markov Model Analysis.

Bae S, Lee H, Her E, Lee K, Kim J, Ahn J J Korean Med Sci. 2025; 40(6):e43.

PMID: 39962941 PMC: 11832884. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e43.

Cost-Effectiveness of Serum Pepsinogen as a Gastric Cancer Targeted Screening Strategy in the United States.

Oh A, Rustgi S, Hur C, In H Gastro Hep Adv. 2025; 4(2):100564.

PMID: 39866720 PMC: 11762188. DOI: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.10.004.

An Exploratory Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-cancer Early Detection Blood Test Compared with Standard of Care Screening in Ontario, Canada.

Lewis D, Wong W, Lipscomb J, Horton S Pharmacoeconomics. 2023; 42(4):393-407.

PMID: 38150120 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01345-9.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the artificial intelligence diagnosis support system for early gastric cancers.

Yonazu S, Ozawa T, Nakanishi T, Ochiai K, Shibata J, Osawa H DEN Open. 2023; 4(1):e289.

PMID: 37644958 PMC: 10461711. DOI: 10.1002/deo2.289.

A Population-Based Helicobacter pylori Eradication Strategy Is More Cost-Effective than Endoscopic Screening.

Kowada A Dig Dis Sci. 2022; 68(5):1735-1746.

PMID: 36565366 PMC: 10133360. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-022-07795-z.

References

Wang P, Luo N, Tai E, Thumboo J . The EQ-5D-5L is More Discriminative Than the EQ-5D-3L in Patients with Diabetes in Singapore. Value Health Reg Issues. 2016; 9:57-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2015.11.003. View

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M . Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2014; 136(5):E359-86. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29210. View

Ferreira L, Ferreira P, Pereira L, Oppe M . The valuation of the EQ-5D in Portugal. Qual Life Res. 2013; 23(2):413-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0448-z. View

Jung K, Won Y, Kong H, Oh C, Lee D, Lee J . Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2011. Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 46(2):109-23. PMC: 4022819. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2014.46.2.109. View

Curran D, Pozzo C, Zaluski J, Dank M, Barone C, Valvere V . Quality of life of palliative chemotherapy naive patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction treated with irinotecan combined with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid: results of a randomised phase III trial. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18(7):853-61. PMC: 2724642. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9493-z. View

Torrance G . Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40(6):593-603. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90019-1. View

de Wit G, Busschbach J, de Charro F . Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?. Health Econ. 2000; 9(2):109-26. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200003)9:2<109::aid-hec503>3.0.co;2-l. View

Cuyun Carter G, King D, Hess L, Mitchell S, Taipale K, Kiiskinen U . Health state utility values associated with advanced gastric, oesophageal, or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. J Med Econ. 2015; 18(11):954-66. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1066380. View

Chang H, Park E, Chung W, Nam C, Choi K, Cho E . Comparing endoscopy and upper gastrointestinal X-ray for gastric cancer screening in South Korea: a cost-utility analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012; 13(6):2721-8. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.6.2721. View

10.

Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, MacIntyre M . The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1(4):505-27. PMC: 4500822. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0735. View

11.

Johnson J, Luo N, Shaw J, Kind P, Coons S . Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?. Med Care. 2005; 43(3):221-8. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00004. View

12.

Zhou H, So J, Yong W, Luo N, Zhu F, Naidoo N . Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-gastric module for the Chinese population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10:145. PMC: 3520860. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-145. View

13.

Malaty H, Kim J, Kim S, Graham D . Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in Korean children: inverse relation to socioeconomic status despite a uniformly high prevalence in adults. Am J Epidemiol. 1996; 143(3):257-62. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008736. View

14.

Li X, Cai H, Wang C, Guo C, He Z, Ke Y . Economic burden of gastrointestinal cancer under the protection of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme in a region of rural China with high incidence of oesophageal cancer: cross-sectional survey. Trop Med Int Health. 2016; 21(7):907-16. DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12715. View

15.

Fuchs H, Holscher A, Leers J, Bludau M, Brinkmann S, Schroder W . Long-term quality of life after surgery for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: extended gastrectomy or transthoracic esophagectomy?. Gastric Cancer. 2015; 19(1):312-7. DOI: 10.1007/s10120-015-0466-3. View

16.

Prosser L, Payne K, Rusinak D, Shi P, Uyeki T, Messonnier M . Valuing health across the lifespan: health state preferences for seasonal influenza illnesses in patients of different ages. Value Health. 2011; 14(1):135-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.026. View

17.

Coons S, Rao S, Keininger D, Hays R . A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 17(1):13-35. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200017010-00002. View

18.

Lee J, Ock M, Jo M, Son W, Lee H, Kim S . Estimating utility weights and quality-adjusted life year loss for colorectal cancer-related health states in Korea. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):5571. PMC: 5514107. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-06004-6. View

19.

Marra C, Woolcott J, Kopec J, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier J . A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 60(7):1571-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034. View

20.

Lee G, Salomon J, Lebaron C, Lieu T . Health-state valuations for pertussis: methods for valuing short-term health states. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005; 3:17. PMC: 555848. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-17. View