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.	王樂, 張玥, 石菊芳, 等. 中國女性乳腺癌疾病負擔分析. 中華流行病學雜志, 2016, 37(7): 970-976.
2.	王樂, 岳馨培, 朱娟, 等. 我國既往二十年乳腺癌經濟負擔研究. 中國慢性病預防與控制, 2017, 25(2): 66-69.
3.	劉國恩. 中國藥物經濟學評價指南及導讀(2015 版). 北京: 科學出版社, 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.	黃蓉, 黃源, 陶蘋, 等. 不同 TNM 分期乳腺癌患者規范化治療后生存期生命質量評價. 中華腫瘤雜志, 2013, 35(1): 71-77.
10.	徐喜卿. 乳腺癌患者不同健康效用值測量方式的比較研究. 山東: 山東大學, 2015: 36-48.
11.	羅霞, 彭六保, 萬小敏, 等. 乳腺癌輔助化學治療方案 TAC 與 FAC 的成本效果分析. 中國新藥與臨床雜志, 2010, 29(3): 232-236.
12.	張峰, 羅立民, 鮑旭東, 等. 中國婦女乳腺 X 線鉬靶攝影普查成本效益分析. 腫瘤, 2012, 32(6): 440-447.
13.	初菁菁. Markov 決策模型在乳腺癌篩查衛生經濟學評價中的應用. 杭州: 浙江大學, 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.	官海靜, 劉國恩. 中國四地城鄉居民生命質量的比較分析. 中國衛生經濟, 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.	王樂, 石菊芳, 黃慧瑤, 等. 我國乳腺癌篩查衛生經濟學研究的系統評價. 中華流行病學雜志, 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. 王樂, 張玥, 石菊芳, 等. 中國女性乳腺癌疾病負擔分析. 中華流行病學雜志, 2016, 37(7): 970-976.
2. 王樂, 岳馨培, 朱娟, 等. 我國既往二十年乳腺癌經濟負擔研究. 中國慢性病預防與控制, 2017, 25(2): 66-69.
3. 劉國恩. 中國藥物經濟學評價指南及導讀(2015 版). 北京: 科學出版社, 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. 黃蓉, 黃源, 陶蘋, 等. 不同 TNM 分期乳腺癌患者規范化治療后生存期生命質量評價. 中華腫瘤雜志, 2013, 35(1): 71-77.
10. 徐喜卿. 乳腺癌患者不同健康效用值測量方式的比較研究. 山東: 山東大學, 2015: 36-48.
11. 羅霞, 彭六保, 萬小敏, 等. 乳腺癌輔助化學治療方案 TAC 與 FAC 的成本效果分析. 中國新藥與臨床雜志, 2010, 29(3): 232-236.
12. 張峰, 羅立民, 鮑旭東, 等. 中國婦女乳腺 X 線鉬靶攝影普查成本效益分析. 腫瘤, 2012, 32(6): 440-447.
13. 初菁菁. Markov 決策模型在乳腺癌篩查衛生經濟學評價中的應用. 杭州: 浙江大學, 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. 官海靜, 劉國恩. 中國四地城鄉居民生命質量的比較分析. 中國衛生經濟, 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. 王樂, 石菊芳, 黃慧瑤, 等. 我國乳腺癌篩查衛生經濟學研究的系統評價. 中華流行病學雜志, 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