Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1095–1103 | Cite as

Health utility scores of colorectal cancer based on societal preference in Japan

  • Takeru ShiroiwaEmail author
  • Takashi Fukuda
  • Kiichiro Tsutani
Article

Abstract

Purpose

We measured health utility scores of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients from a societal perspective in Japan.

Methods

Twenty-five states of health were described: four metastatic states without severe adverse events (AEs), 16 metastatic states with Grade 3/4 AEs, four adjuvant states, and one terminal state. A total of 1,500 respondents stratified by age and gender were recruited randomly from the largest Web-panel in Japan. Respondents were allocated randomly to three of the 25 health states and answered questionnaires by standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO) methods.

Results

Although utility scores of metastatic CRC receiving XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) chemotherapy were 0.48(SG and TTO) (with stoma) and 0.57(SG) or 0.59(TTO) (without stoma), utility scores of those receiving FOLFOX4 (5-fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy were 0.42(SG) or 0.43(TTO) (with stoma) and 0.52(SG) or 0.53(TTO) (without stoma). These differences between XELOX and FOLFOX4 were statistically significant (P = 0.0198 in SG and P = 0.0059 in TTO). Stage 3/4 AEs decreased utility scores to 0.35–0.4 and 0.4–0.45 in the presence and absence of stoma, respectively.

Conclusions

XELOX was generally considered a significantly preferable chemotherapy regimen compared to FOLFOX4 for CRC in Japan. Almost all Grade 3/4 AEs and stoma significantly decreased utility scores. These differences are dependent on the accuracy of the health state description and to confirm these results. In future research, it would be preferable that preference-based HRQoL measures are used directly in patients if utility scores are practically measurable by such method.

Keywords

Colorectal neoplasms Quality-adjusted life-years FOLFOX XELOX Standard gamble Time trade-off 

Abbreviations

CRC

Colorectal cancer

MCRC

Metastatic colorectal cancer

AEs

Adverse events

FOLFOX

5-Fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin

XELOX

Capecitabine (Xeloda®) plus oxaliplatin

SG

Standard gamble

TTO

Time trade-off

HS

Health state

References

  1. 1.
    Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. (2007). Population Survey Report [in Japanese].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Japan. (2007). Regional Cancer Records and Estimated National Figures [in Japanese].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buyse, M., Thirion, P., Carlson, R. W., Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G., et al. (2000). Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Meta-analysis group in cancer. Lancet, 356(9227), 373–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saltz, L. B., Cox, J. V., Blanke, C., Rosen, L. S., Fehrenbacher, L., et al. (2000). Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan study group. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(13), 905–914.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Douillard, J. Y., Cunningham, D., Roth, A. D., Navarro, M., James, R. D., et al. (2000). Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet, 355(9209), 1041–1047.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tournigand, C., Andre, T., Achille, E., Lledo, G., Flesh, M., et al. (2004). FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: A randomized GERCOR study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(2), 229–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Gramont, A., Figer, A., Seymour, M., Homerin, M., Hmissi, A., et al. (2000). Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18(16), 2938–2947.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Porschen, R., Arkenau, H. T., Kubicka, S., Greil, R., Seufferlein, T., et al. (2007). Phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil and leucovorin plus oxaliplatin in metastatic colorectal cancer: A final report of the AIO colorectal study group. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(27), 4217–4223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diaz-Rubio, E., Tabernero, J., Gomez-Espana, A., Massuti, B., Sastre, J., et al. (2007). Phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with continuous-infusion fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: Final report of the Spanish cooperative group for the treatment of digestive tumors trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(27), 4224–4230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cassidy, J., Clarke, S., Diaz-Rubio, E., Scheithauer, W., Figer, A., et al. (2008). Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(12), 2006–2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saltz, L. B., Clarke, S., Diaz-Rubio, E., Scheithauer, W., Figer, A., et al. (2008). Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized phase III study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(12), 2013–2019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rothenberg, M. L., Cox, J. V., Butts, C., Navarro, M., Bang, Y. J., et al. (2008). Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized phase III noninferiority study. Annals of Oncology, 19(10), 1720–1726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Boyle, M. (1995). Multi-attribute preference functions. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 503–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Narewska, J., Dewilde, S., & Watkins, J. (2006). Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 95(6), 683–690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milne, R. J., Heaton-Brown, K. H., Hansen, P., Thomas, D., Harvey, V., et al. (2006). Quality-of-life valuations of advanced breast cancer by New Zealand women. Pharmacoeconomics, 24(3), 281–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lidgren, M., Wilking, N., Jonsson, B., & Rehnberg, C. (2007). Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 1073–1081.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart, S. T., Lenert, L., Bhatnagar, V., & Kaplan, R. M. (2005). Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Medical Care, 43(4), 347–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Doyle, S., Lloyd, A., & Walker, M. (2008). Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 62(3), 374–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nafees, B., Stafford, M., Gavriel, S., Bhalla, S., & Watkins, J. (2008). Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gold, M., Siegel, J., Russell, L., & Weinstein, M. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2008). Labor force survey [in Japanese].Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramsey, S. D., Andersen, M. R., Etzioni, R., Moinpour, C., Peacock, S., et al. (2000). Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer, 88(6), 1294–1303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson, T. R., Alexander, D. J., & Kind, P. (2006). Measurement of health-related quality of life in the early follow-up of colon and rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 49(11), 1692–1702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ko, C. Y., Maggard, M., & Livingston, E. H. (2003). Evaluating health utility in patients with melanoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer: A nationwide, population-based assessment. Journal of Surgical Research, 114(1), 1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takeru Shiroiwa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Takashi Fukuda
    • 2
  • Kiichiro Tsutani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Drug Policy and Management, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology Research, School of Public HealthThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations