Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 527–536 | Cite as

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

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



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.


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.”


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.


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.


Breast cancer Critical appraisal Cost–utility analysis Health-state utility values 

Supplementary material

10549_2017_4283_MOESM1_ESM.docx (88 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 87 kb)
10549_2017_4283_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (661 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 661 kb)


  1. 1.
    Benson JR, Jatoi I (2012) The global breast cancer burden. Future Oncol 8:697–702. doi:10.2217/fon.12.61 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winn AN, Ekwueme DU, Guy GP, Neumann PJ (2016) Cost–utility analysis of cancer prevention, treatment, and control: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 50:241–248. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nerich V, Saing S, Gamper M et al (2016) Cost–utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 159:407–424. doi:10.1007/s10549-016-3924-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, O’Brien B (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, TorranceGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL (1972) A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7:118–133PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) (eBook and Paperback), 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torrance GW (1976) Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 10:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A et al (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20:1727–1736. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M (1995) Multi-attribute preference functions: health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 7:503–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 34:702–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Decision Support Unit. Technical Support Document 9: The identification, review, and synthesis of health state utility values from the literatureGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013: guidance and guidelines. Accessed 3 Mar 2017
  15. 15.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG (2010) Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 7:e1000217. doi:10.1007/BF03022653 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benedict A, Brown RE (2005) Review of cost-effectiveness analyses in hormonal therapies in advanced breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 6:1789–1801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calvert M, Blazeby J, Revicki D et al (2011) Reporting quality of life in clinical trials: a CONSORT extension. Lancet 378:1684–1685. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61256-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG et al (2013) Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA 309:814–822. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.879 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Measurement of health state utility values for economic models in clinical studies. Accessed 3 Mar 2017
  21. 21.
    Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J (2010) Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10:553–566. doi:10.1586/erp.10.65 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herdman M, Cole A, Hoyle CK et al (2016) Sources and characteristics of utility weights for economic evaluation of pediatric vaccines: a systematic review. Value Health 19:255–266. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parkinson B, Pearson S-A, Viney R (2014) Economic evaluations of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and critique. Eur J Health Econ 15:93–112. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0459-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tosh JC, Longworth LJ, George E (2011) Utility values in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals. Value Health 14:102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 26:297–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginie Nerich
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sopany Saing
    • 3
  • Eva-Maria Gamper
    • 4
  • Bernhard Holzner
    • 4
  • Xavier Pivot
    • 2
    • 5
  • Rosalie Viney
    • 3
  • Georg Kemmler
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PharmacyUniversity Hospital of BesançonBesançonFrance
  2. 2.INSERM, Unit 1098University of Franche-ComtéBesançonFrance
  3. 3.Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE)University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and PsychosomaticsMedical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  5. 5.Department of Medical OncologyUniversity Hospital of BesançonBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations