A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities

Sandjar Djalalov · Linda Rabeneck · GEORGE A. TOMLINSON · Karen E. Bremner · Robert J. Hilsden · Jeffrey S. Hoch

57 citations0/0 files storedMedical Decision Making

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Cancer survivorship and care Economic and Environmental Valuation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of utility weights for colorectal cancer (CRC) health states reported in the scientific literature and to determine the effects of disease factors, patient characteristics, and utility methods on utility values. METHODS: We identified 26 articles written in English and published from January 1980 to January 2013, providing 351 unique utilities for CRC health states elicited from 6546 unique respondents. The CRC utility data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with CRC type, stage, time to or from initial care, utility measurement instrument, and administration method as independent variables. RESULTS: In the base case model, the estimated utility for a patient with stage I to III CRC more than 1 year after surgery, rated using a self-administered time tradeoff instrument, was 0.90. Stage, time to or from initial care, and utility measurement instrument were associated with statistically significant utility differences ranging from -0.19 to 0.02. Utilities for patients with stage IV cancer were 0.19 lower (P < 0.001) than for those with stage I to III cancer. Utilities elicited at more than 1 year after surgery were 0.05 higher than those elicited at 3 months after surgery (P = 0.008). Estimates of differences between utility measurement instruments were sensitive to how repeated scores in the same patient group were treated, and other findings were sensitive to how the disease stage was modeled and method of administration. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in reported utilities are associated with factors such as cancer stage, time to or from initial care, and utility measurement instrument. More research is needed to study why apparently similar patients report different quality of life.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 2000Systematic Overview of Cost-Utility Assessments in Oncology 2003A Meta-Analysis of Quality-of-Life Estimates for Stroke 2009Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis 1999Utility Valuations for Outcome States of Colorectal Cancer 2002A Meta-Analysis of Utility Estimates for HIV/AIDS 2010Health-state utility values in breast cancer 2009An updated systematic review of Health State Utility Values for osteoporosis related conditions

Cited by

2020Preoperative physiotherapy is cost-effective for preventing pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery: a health economic analysis of a multicentre randomised trial

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.