Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Association between Symptom Burdens and Utility in Chinese Cancer Patients

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study explored the relationship between the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), an instrument measuring the severity of symptoms common to patients with cancer, and utility derived from the SF-36.

Methods

Cancer patients from Tianjin Cancer Hospital in China (n = 249) completed a demographic questionnaire and Chinese versions of the MDASI and SF-36. Using a published algorithm converting SF-36 scores to standard gamble (SG) utilities, we examined the association between utility and individual symptoms using Spearman’s rank correlation, and explored the association between utility and aggregate symptom scores through multivariate regression analyses.

Results

The mean SG utility was 0.81 (SD = 0.11); utilities were significantly but moderately correlated with the majority of symptoms, especially those of distress, sadness, fatigue, and pain. Regression models showed a significantly negative association between the total symptom score and the utility. After controlling for sociodemographics, cancer stage and performance status, a significantly negative association between the total symptom scores and utility was found in the multivariate analyses. We also found the total number of severe symptoms to be a stronger predictor of “disutility.”

Conclusions

Symptom measures were significantly albeit moderately associated with utility derived from the SF-36 scores, suggesting that a full study with rigorously collected utilities is worth exploring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al (1996). Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276(16):1339–1341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al (1996). Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276(15):1253–1258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (1996). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  4. Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, et al. (2000). Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 18(18):3302–3317

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Raiffa H (1968). Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. New York, Random House

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cantor SB (1995). Decision analysis: Theory and application to medicine. Prim Care 22(2):261–270

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC (1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res 28:206–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, et al (2000). Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: The M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer 89(7):1634–1646

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kiebert GM, Curran D, Aaronson NK, et al. (1998). Quality of life after radiation therapy of cerebral low-grade gliomas of the adult: Results of a randomized phase III trail on dose response (CORTC trial 22844). EORTC Radiotherapy Co-operative Group. Eur J Cancer 34(12):1902–1909

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kramer JA, Curran D, Piccart M, et al (2000). Randomised trial of paclitaxel vs doxorubicin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: Quality of life evaluation using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Rotterdam symptom checklist. Eur J Cancer 36(12):1488–1497

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang XS, Wang Y, Guo H, et al. (2004). Chinese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory: Validation and application of symptom measurement in cancer patients. Cancer 101(8):1890–1901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Okuyama T, Wang XS, Akechi T, et al. (2003). Japanese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory: A validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 26(6):1093–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mystakidou K, Cleeland CS, Tsilika E, et al. (2004). Greek M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory: validation and utility in cancer patients. Oncology 67(3–4):203–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang XS, Mendoza TR, Gao SZ, Cleeland CS (1996). The Chinese version of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-C): Its development and use in a study of cancer pain. Pain 67(2–3):407–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cleeland CS, Reyes-Gibby CC (2002). When is it justified to treat symptoms? Measuring symptom burden. Oncology 16(9):64–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):1115–1128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21(2):271–292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang XS, Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, et al. (1999). The effects of pain severity on health-related quality of life: A study of Chinese cancer patients. Cancer 86(9):1848–1855

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ren XS, Wang XS, Liu S, Hao X (2003). Psychometric and clinical evaluation of the Chinese version of the SF-36 health survey among cancer patients in China. Qual Life Res Newslett 30:5–7

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brazier JE, Roberts J (2004) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 42(9):851–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, et al. (2003). A review from the bridge: Agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 12:975–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5(1):1–30. Review

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Torrance GW, Feeny D (1989). Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5(4):559–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5(6):649–655

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM (1993). Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 2:477–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Stiggelbout AM, de Haes JCJM (2001). Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol 19(1):220–230

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cleeland CS, Serlin RC, Nakamura Y, et al. (1997). Effects of culture and language on ratings of cancer pain and patterns of functional interference. In: Jensen TS, Turner JA, Wiesenfeld-Hallin Z, (eds). Progress in Pain Research and Management. Seattle, IASP Press, pp. 35–51

    Google Scholar 

  29. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, et al (1995). When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain 61:277–284

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hui EC (2005). The centrality of patient-physician relationship to medical professionalism: An ethical evaluation of some contemporary models. Hong Kong Med J 11(3):222–223

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sloan JA, Loprinzi CL, Laurine JA, et al (2001). A simple stratification factor prognostic for survival in advanced cancer: The good/bad/uncertain index. J Clin Oncol 19(15):3539–3546

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Xi-Shan Hau and Ms. Ying Wang at Tianjin Cancer Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, China, for their assistance in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Health Services Research, Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA

    Ya-Chen Tina Shih & Scott B. Cantor

  2. Department of Symptom Research, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA

    Xin Shelley Wang & Charles S. Cleeland

  3. Section of Health Services Research, Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 196, Houston, Texas, 77030-4009, USA

    Ya-Chen Tina Shih

Authors
  1. Ya-Chen Tina Shih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xin Shelley Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Scott B. Cantor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles S. Cleeland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya-Chen Tina Shih.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shih, YC.T., Wang, X.S., Cantor, S.B. et al. The Association between Symptom Burdens and Utility in Chinese Cancer Patients. Qual Life Res 15, 1427–1438 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-0011-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-0011-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation