Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2017

01-08-2017 | Review

Critical appraisal of health-state utility values used in breast cancer-related cost–utility analyses

Authors: Virginie Nerich, Sopany Saing, Eva-Maria Gamper, Bernhard Holzner, Xavier Pivot, Rosalie Viney, Georg Kemmler

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To review the data sources of health-state utility values (HSUVs), as well as their elicitation and use, in 140 breast cancer-related cost–utility analyses (CUAs), and to provide a critical appraisal of these.

Methods

A checklist was developed to guide the process of the critical appraisal. It is divided into three parts: the data source (three questions), elicitation method (four questions), and use (ten questions) of HSUVs in CUAs. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction. A consensus was reached in case of disagreements. Data sources were categorized as “original study,” “derived from the literature,” or “other.”

Results

The data source of HSUVs was always specified. When HSUVs were derived from the literature (90% of cases), the authors referred to a median number of two references as data sources. The critical appraisal of the elicitation of HSUVs in CUAs revealed considerable variability in terms of the quality of the reporting of the data source selection of HSUV. More details were provided by authors when HSUVs were elicited from an original study rather than derived from the literature. The use of HSUVs elicited from an original study was generally better described in terms of the checklist than were those derived from the literature.

Conclusions

Based on the developed checklist, we were able to highlight the challenges that authors are facing when trying to adequately report HSUV used in CUAs. Our proposed checklist offers a good starting point for encouraging more explicit and comprehensive reporting of HSUVs in CUAs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
4.
go back to reference Drummond M, Sculpher M, O’Brien B (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Torrance Drummond M, Sculpher M, O’Brien B (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Torrance
5.
go back to reference Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL (1972) A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7:118–133PubMedPubMedCentral Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL (1972) A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7:118–133PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) (eBook and Paperback), 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, London von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) (eBook and Paperback), 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, London
7.
go back to reference Torrance GW (1976) Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 10:129–136CrossRef Torrance GW (1976) Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 10:129–136CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M (1995) Multi-attribute preference functions: health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 7:503–520CrossRefPubMed Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M (1995) Multi-attribute preference functions: health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 7:503–520CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ et al (1996) Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utilities index mark 2. Med Care 34:702–722CrossRefPubMed Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ et al (1996) Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health utilities index mark 2. Med Care 34:702–722CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292CrossRefPubMed Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Decision Support Unit. Technical Support Document 9: The identification, review, and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature Decision Support Unit. Technical Support Document 9: The identification, review, and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature
15.
go back to reference Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S et al (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 16:231–250. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 CrossRefPubMed Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S et al (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 16:231–250. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2013.​02.​002 CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Benedict A, Brown RE (2005) Review of cost-effectiveness analyses in hormonal therapies in advanced breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 6:1789–1801CrossRefPubMed Benedict A, Brown RE (2005) Review of cost-effectiveness analyses in hormonal therapies in advanced breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 6:1789–1801CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, Viney R (2008) The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–2004. PharmacoEconomics 26:297–310CrossRefPubMed Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, Viney R (2008) The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–2004. PharmacoEconomics 26:297–310CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Critical appraisal of health-state utility values used in breast cancer-related cost–utility analyses
Authors
Virginie Nerich
Sopany Saing
Eva-Maria Gamper
Bernhard Holzner
Xavier Pivot
Rosalie Viney
Georg Kemmler
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4283-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2017 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine