Health utility score of breast cancer in China: a systematic review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHU Juan ¹ ^# , WANG Le ¹ ^# , HE Shijiao ^1,2 , HUANG Huiyao ¹ , LI Jiang ¹ , YAN Shipeng ^1,3 , FANG Yi ^1,4 , DAI Min ¹ ,  SHI Jufang ¹

1. Program Office for Cancer Screening in Urban China, National Cancer Center, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, P.R.China;
2. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
3. Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, 410000, P.R.China;
4. Department of Breast Surgery, National Cancer Center, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

SHI Jufang, Email: shijf@cicams.ac.cn

Keywords：

Breast cancer; Quality of life; Health utility scores; Systematic review; China

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201702016

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To systematically review the health utility scores for patients with breast cancer in China. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched from inception to November, 2016 to collect studies for health utility scores for breast cancer in China. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software. Results A total of 6 studies were included. Compared with modeling studies, the range of utility scores from cross-sectional studies was narrower. The results of meta-analysis showed the utility scores for breast cancer were 0.77 (95%CI 0.67 to 0.87), 0.77 (95%CI 0.68 to 0.86) at stage 0 to Ⅰ, 0.76 (95%CI 0.66 to 0.85) at stage Ⅱ, 0.74 (95%CI 0.65 to 0.83) at stage Ⅲ and 0.73 (95%CI 0.65 to 0.81) at stage Ⅳ, respectively. Meanwhile, we descripted the median of utility scores of all studies, and the corresponding values were 0.81 (range 0.65 to 0.83), 0.82 (range 0.65 to 1.00) at stage 0, 0.82 (range 0.65 to 0.90) at stage Ⅰ, 0.77 (range 0.67 to 0.86) at stage Ⅱ, 0.70 (range 0.64 to 0.82) at stage Ⅲ and 0.70 (range 0.30 to 0.80) at stage Ⅳ, respectively. Conclusion Research on the health utility scores of breast cancer is still limited in China. Utility scores are decreasing among different clinical stages, with lowest score at late stage cancer. These findings can be used in further cost-utility evaluation on various breast cancer interventions.

Citation： ZHU Juan, WANG Le, HE Shijiao, HUANG Huiyao, LI Jiang, YAN Shipeng, FANG Yi, DAI Min, SHI Jufang. Health utility score of breast cancer in China: a systematic review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2017, 17(9): 1066-1071. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201702016 Copy

1.	王乐, 张玥, 石菊芳, 等. 中国女性乳腺癌疾病负担分析. 中华流行病学杂志, 2016, 37(7): 970-976.
2.	王乐, 岳馨培, 朱娟, 等. 我国既往二十年乳腺癌经济负担研究. 中国慢性病预防与控制, 2017, 25(2): 66-69.
3.	刘国恩. 中国药物经济学评价指南及导读(2015 版). 北京: 科学出版社, 2015: 27-28.
4.	Hao Y, Wolfram V, Cook J. A structured review of health utility measures and elicitation in advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res, 2016, 8: 293-303.
5.	Ghislain I, Zikos E, Coens C, et al. Health-related quality of life in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: methodological and clinical issues in randomized controlled trials. Lancet Oncol, 2016, 17(7): e294-304.
6.	Rostom A, Dubé C, Cranney A. Celiac disease. Evidence reports/technology assessments. [cited 2016 Feb 10]. Quality Assessment Forms, 2004. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/books/NBK35156.
7.	Higgins JP, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1539-1559.
8.	Shih YCT, Wang XS, Cantor SB, et al. The Association between Symptom Burdens and Utility in Chinese Cancer Patients. Qual Life Res, 2006, 15(8): 1427-1438.
9.	黄蓉, 黄源, 陶苹, 等. 不同 TNM 分期乳腺癌患者规范化治疗后生存期生命质量评价. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2013, 35(1): 71-77.
10.	徐喜卿. 乳腺癌患者不同健康效用值测量方式的比较研究. 山东: 山东大学, 2015: 36-48.
11.	罗霞, 彭六保, 万小敏, 等. 乳腺癌辅助化学治疗方案 TAC 与 FAC 的成本效果分析. 中国新药与临床杂志, 2010, 29(3): 232-236.
12.	张峰, 罗立民, 鲍旭东, 等. 中国妇女乳腺 X 线钼靶摄影普查成本效益分析. 肿瘤, 2012, 32(6): 440-447.
13.	初菁菁. Markov 决策模型在乳腺癌筛查卫生经济学评价中的应用. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2014: 21.
14.	Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, et al. Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess, 2007, 11(40): 1-144.
15.	Wong IO, Kuntz KM, Cowling BJ, et al. Cost effectiveness of mammography screening for Chinese women. Cancer, 2007, 110(4): 885-895.
16.	Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, et al. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health, 2014, 17(5): 597-604.
17.	Kim SK, Kim SH, Jo MW, et al. Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2015, 13(1): 1-6.
18.	Whitehurst DG, Bryan S, Lewis M. Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Med Decis Making, 2011, 31(6): e34.
19.	官海静, 刘国恩. 中国四地城乡居民生命质量的比较分析. 中国卫生经济, 2015, 34(2): 5-12.
20.	Shi JF, Huang HY, Guo LW, et al. Quality-of-life and health utility scores for common cancers in China: a multicentre cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 2016, 388(Suppl 1): 29.
21.	王乐, 石菊芳, 黄慧瑶, 等. 我国乳腺癌筛查卫生经济学研究的系统评价. 中华流行病学杂志, 2016, 37(12): 1662-1669.
22.	Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber R M, et al. Global, Regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol, 2016, 3(4): e1-23.
23.	Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology, 2015, 274(3): 772-7780.

1. 王乐, 张玥, 石菊芳, 等. 中国女性乳腺癌疾病负担分析. 中华流行病学杂志, 2016, 37(7): 970-976.
2. 王乐, 岳馨培, 朱娟, 等. 我国既往二十年乳腺癌经济负担研究. 中国慢性病预防与控制, 2017, 25(2): 66-69.
3. 刘国恩. 中国药物经济学评价指南及导读(2015 版). 北京: 科学出版社, 2015: 27-28.
4. Hao Y, Wolfram V, Cook J. A structured review of health utility measures and elicitation in advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res, 2016, 8: 293-303.
5. Ghislain I, Zikos E, Coens C, et al. Health-related quality of life in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: methodological and clinical issues in randomized controlled trials. Lancet Oncol, 2016, 17(7): e294-304.
6. Rostom A, Dubé C, Cranney A. Celiac disease. Evidence reports/technology assessments. [cited 2016 Feb 10]. Quality Assessment Forms, 2004. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/books/NBK35156.
7. Higgins JP, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1539-1559.
8. Shih YCT, Wang XS, Cantor SB, et al. The Association between Symptom Burdens and Utility in Chinese Cancer Patients. Qual Life Res, 2006, 15(8): 1427-1438.
9. 黄蓉, 黄源, 陶苹, 等. 不同 TNM 分期乳腺癌患者规范化治疗后生存期生命质量评价. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2013, 35(1): 71-77.
10. 徐喜卿. 乳腺癌患者不同健康效用值测量方式的比较研究. 山东: 山东大学, 2015: 36-48.
11. 罗霞, 彭六保, 万小敏, 等. 乳腺癌辅助化学治疗方案 TAC 与 FAC 的成本效果分析. 中国新药与临床杂志, 2010, 29(3): 232-236.
12. 张峰, 罗立民, 鲍旭东, 等. 中国妇女乳腺 X 线钼靶摄影普查成本效益分析. 肿瘤, 2012, 32(6): 440-447.
13. 初菁菁. Markov 决策模型在乳腺癌筛查卫生经济学评价中的应用. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2014: 21.
14. Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, et al. Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess, 2007, 11(40): 1-144.
15. Wong IO, Kuntz KM, Cowling BJ, et al. Cost effectiveness of mammography screening for Chinese women. Cancer, 2007, 110(4): 885-895.
16. Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, et al. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health, 2014, 17(5): 597-604.
17. Kim SK, Kim SH, Jo MW, et al. Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2015, 13(1): 1-6.
18. Whitehurst DG, Bryan S, Lewis M. Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Med Decis Making, 2011, 31(6): e34.
19. 官海静, 刘国恩. 中国四地城乡居民生命质量的比较分析. 中国卫生经济, 2015, 34(2): 5-12.
20. Shi JF, Huang HY, Guo LW, et al. Quality-of-life and health utility scores for common cancers in China: a multicentre cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 2016, 388(Suppl 1): 29.
21. 王乐, 石菊芳, 黄慧瑶, 等. 我国乳腺癌筛查卫生经济学研究的系统评价. 中华流行病学杂志, 2016, 37(12): 1662-1669.
22. Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber R M, et al. Global, Regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol, 2016, 3(4): e1-23.
23. Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology, 2015, 274(3): 772-7780.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Health utility score of breast cancer in China: a systematic review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content