Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy - general.

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to estimate an algorithm to convert responses to the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) to time trade-off (TTO) utilities based on utilities for current health elicited from cancer patients. METHODS Data for 1433 cancer patients were randomly separated into construction and validation samples. Four FACT-G questions were selected for inclusion based on correlation with Eastern Clinical Oncology Group - Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scores and TTO utilities. Item response theory was used to collapse response categories. Ordinary least squares regression with the constant constrained to one was used to estimate the algorithm. RESULTS The algorithm estimated mean utility for the full validation sample within three points of observed mean utility (0.805 vs. 0.832, P < 0.01). Mean utilities were well predicted (mean absolute difference < 0.03, P > 0.05) for most subgroups defined by ECOG-PS and Short Form-36 physical functioning scores, and responses to the FACT-G overall quality of life item. Nevertheless, the algorithm systematically overpredicted utilities for poorer health states. CONCLUSIONS A FACT-G-based algorithm of cancer patient utilities was developed that estimates group mean utility scores with accuracy comparable to other indirect preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Patient-based preferences for health outcomes of cancer treatment may be useful in multiple situations, such as managing resources within cancer centers and in understanding health states preferences among cancer experienced patients before and after treatment.

[1]  D. Tulsky,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. , 1995, Lung cancer.

[2]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[3]  D. Feeny,et al.  Health Utilities Index Mark 3 , 2016 .

[4]  M. Gold Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[5]  R. Deyo,et al.  The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. , 2002, Health economics.

[6]  William F Lawrence,et al.  Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D Preference Scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a Nationally Representative Sample , 2004, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  W. Catalona,et al.  Patient preferences for outcomes associated with surgical management of prostate cancer. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[8]  D. Tulsky,et al.  The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. , 1993, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  D. Feeny,et al.  The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[10]  J. Pater Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials , 1996 .

[11]  Leslie E. Papke,et al.  Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates , 1993 .

[12]  G. Bonsel,et al.  The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[13]  J. Brazier,et al.  Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[15]  K C Cain,et al.  Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death , 1994, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[16]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Assessing Values for Health: Numeracy Matters , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  J. V. Von Roenn,et al.  Defining Higher Order Dimensions of Self-Reported Health , 2005, Evaluation & the health professions.

[18]  J. Brazier,et al.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[19]  B. Spilker,et al.  Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials , 1996 .

[20]  E. Calhoun,et al.  Testing subject comprehension of utility questionnaires , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[21]  M. Drummond Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[22]  M Johannesson,et al.  The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population , 1999, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  P. Kind,et al.  “Death” and the Valuation of Health-Related Quality of Life , 2001, Medical care.

[24]  S. Jansen,et al.  Stability of Patients’ Preferences for Chemotherapy , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[25]  D. Feeny,et al.  Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke , 2005, Quality of Life Research.