Skip to main content

The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer: A prospective longitudinal study

Quality of Life Research volume 17, pages 333–345 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The health utilities index (HUI3) is a health measurement instrument based on individuals’ preferences for different health states. Breast cancer (BC) is common, with a high proportion of long-term survivors, making evaluation of treatment effects important. Feasibility and responsiveness of HUI3 was compared to the short-form 36 (SF-36) in patients with BC.

Methods

HUI3 and SF-36 were administered eight times: at initial surgical consultation, 1 week before surgery; 1 week, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery. Effect size, analysis of variance, and Pearson product moment correlations were calculated. BC data were compared to normative values.

Results

Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Ninety-one percent of planned assessments were completed. HUI3 showed significant responsiveness (P < 0.01) after surgery and during recovery. HUI3 scores correlated with SF-36 scores. Comparison to normative data demonstrated the significant detrimental effect of BC diagnosis. Results showed long-term effects of treatment on physical health and positive effects on mental/emotional health in BC survivors.

Conclusion(s)

HUI3 was found to be feasible and responsive in our cohort of BC patients. Changes in HUI3 values over time, and compared to normative data, paralleled SF-36 scores. HUI3 is a valuable tool in health-related quality of life and cost-utility studies in patients with BC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Abbreviations

BC:

Breast cancer

HUI3:

Health utilities index

SF-36:

Short form 36

HRQL:

Health-related quality of life

QOL:

Quality of life

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

QALYs:

Quality-adjusted life years

BCS:

Breast-conserving surgery

MRM:

Modified radical mastectomy

PET:

Positron emission tomography

IC:

Initial consult

MCS:

Mental component score

PCS:

Physical component score

PF:

Physical functioning

RP:

Role-physical

BP:

Bodily pain

RE:

Role-emotional

MH:

Mental health

GH:

General health

VT:

Vitality

SF:

Social functioning

References

  1. Ferlay, J., Bray, F., Pisani, P., & Parkin, D. M. (2001). Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide, Version 1.0 IARC CancerBase No. 5. Lyon, IARC Press.

  2. Moyer, A. (1997). Psychosocial outcomes of breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy: A meta-analytic review. Health Psychology, 16, 284–298.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Casso, D., Buist, D. S. M., & Taplin, S. (2004). Quality of life of 5–10 year breast cancer survivors diagnosed between age 40 and 49. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life: Basic sciences review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 70, 225–230.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cella, D. F., & Tulsky, D. S. (1990). Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspects. Oncology, 5, 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Guyatt, G. H., Naylor, C. D., Juniper, E., Heyland, D. K., Jaeschke, R., & Cook, D. J. (1997). Users’ guides to the medical literature XII. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1232–1237.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wright, J. G. (2000). Evaluating the outcome of treatment: Shouldn’t we be asking patients if they are better? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 549–553.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–228.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Horsman, J., Furlong, B., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties, and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones, C. A., Feeny, D., & Eng, K. (2005). Test–retest reliability of health utilities index scores: Evidence from hip fracture. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 21(3), 393–398.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Blanchard, C., Feeny, D. H., Mahon, J. L., Bourne, R., Rorabeck, C., Stitt, L., et al. (2003). Is the Health Utilities Index responsive in total hip arthroplasty patients? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(11), 1046–1054.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drummond, M. (2001). Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 344–349.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grootendorst, P., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2000). Health Utilities Index Mark 3: Evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Medical Care, 38(3), 290–299.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2006). Comparisons of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. Journal of Health Economics, 25(2), 334–346.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaplan, R. M., Anderson, J. P., Wu, A. W., Mathews, C., Kozin, F., & Orenstein, D. (1989). The quality of well-being scale: Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis and arthritis. Medical Care, 27, S27–S43.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gelber, R. D., Bonetti, M., Cole, B. F., Gelber, S., & Goldhirsch, A. (1998). Quality of life assessment in the adjuvant setting: it is relevant? International breast cancer study group. Recent Results in Cancer Research, 152, 373–389.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher, B., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., Margolese, R. G., Deutsch, M., Fisher, E. R., et al. (2002). Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1233–1241.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Veronesi, U., Cascinelli, N., Mariani, L., Greco, M., Saccozzi, R., Luini, A., et al. (2002). Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early stage breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1227–1232.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Poggi, M. M., Danforth, D. N., Sciuto, L. C., Smith, S. L., Steinberg, S. M., Liewehr, D. J., et al. (2003). Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: The National Cancer Institute randomized trial. Cancer, 9, 697–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schain, W. S., d’Angelo, T. M., Dunn, M. E., Lickter, A. S., & Pierce, L. J. (1994). Mastectomy versus conservative surgery and radiation therapy: Psychosocial consequences. Cancer 73, 1221–1228.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Margolis, G., Goodman, R. L., & Rubin, A. (1990). Psychological effects of breast-conserving cancer treatment and mastectomy. Psychosomatics, 31, 33–39.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Al-Ghazal, S. K., Fallowfield, L., & Blamey, R. W. (2000). Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. European Journal of Cancer, 36, 1938–1943.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Shimozuma, K., Ganz, P. A., Petersen, L., & Hirji, K. (1999). Quality of life in the first year after breast cancer surgery: Rehabilitation needs and patterns of recovery. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 56, 45–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ganz, P. A., Kwan, L., Stanton, A. L., & Krupnick, J. L. (2004). Quality of life at the end of primary treatment of breast cancer: First results from the moving beyond cancer randomized trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96, 376–387.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Avis, N. E., Crawford, S., & Manuel, J. (2005). Quality of life among younger women with breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 3322–3330.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wenzel, L. B., Fairclough, D. L., Brady, M. J., Cella, D., Garrett, K. M., Klushman, B. C., et al. (1999). Age-related differences in the quality of life of breast carcinoma patients after treatment. Cancer, 86, 1768–1774.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ganz, P. A., Coscarelli, A., Fred, C., Kahn, B., Polinsky, M. L., & Petersen, L. (1996). Beast cancer survivors: Psychosocial concerns and quality of life. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 38, 183–199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ganz, P. A., Rowland, J. H., Desmond, K., Meyerowitz, B. E., & Wyatt, G. E. (1998). Life after breast cancer: Understanding women’s health-related quality of life and sexual functioning. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 501–514.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ganz, P. A., Desmond, K. A., Leedham, B., Rowland, J. H., Meyerowitz, B. E., & Belin, T. R. (2002). Quality of life in long-term, disease-free survivors of breast cancer: A follow-up study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94, 39–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wapnir, I. L., Cody, R. P., & Greco, R. S. (1999). Subtle differences in quality of life after breast cancer surgery. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 6, 359–366.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Arndt, V., Sturmer, T., Stegmaier, C., Ziegler, H., & Brenner, H. (2004). Age-specific detriments to quality of life among breast cancer patients one year after diagnosis. European Journal of Cancer, 40, 673–680.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bardwell, W. A., Major, J. M., Rock, C. L., Newman, V. A., Thomson, C. A., Chilton, J. A., et al. (2004). Health-related quality of life in women previously treated for early-stage breast cancer: For the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study Group. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 595–604.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Arora, N. K., Gustafson, D. H., Hawkins, R. P., McTavish, F., Cella, D. F., Pingree, S., et al. (2001). Impact of surgery and chemotherapy on the quality of life of younger women with beast carcinoma. Cancer, 92, 1288–1298.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Maunsell, E., Brisson, J., & Deschenes, L. (1993). Arm problems and psychological distress after surgery for breast cancer. Canadian Journal of Surgery 36, 315–320.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ververs, J. M., Roumen, R. M., Vingerhoets, A. J., Vreugdenhil, G., Coebergh, J. W., Crommelin, M. A., et al. (2001). Risk, severity and predictors of physical and psychological morbidity after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 37, 991–999.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Polsky, D., Keating, N. L., Weeks, J. C., & Schulman, K. A. (2002). Patient Choice of Breast Cancer Treatment: Impact on health state preference. Medical Care, 40, 1068–1079.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hopman, W. M., Towheed, T., Anastassiades, T., Tenenhouse, A., Poliquin, S., Berger, C., et al. (2000). Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Can Med Assoc J, 163, 265–271.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Statistics Canada. General Social Survey (1991), Public use microdata file documentation and user’s guide. Ottawa, Ontario Ministry of Industry and Science and Technology; 1992.

  40. Statistics Canada. (1995). NPHS public use microdata documentation. Ottawa, Ontario.

  41. Ware, J. E. Jr., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993 and 2005 editions.

  42. Lovrics, P. J., Chen, V., Coates, G., Cornacchi, S., Goldsmith, C. H., Law, C., et al. (2004). A prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography scanning, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and standard axillary dissection for axillary staging in patients with early stage breast cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 11, 846–853.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Statistics Canada: Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 1.1 (2000–2001).

  44. Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Wiersinga, W. M., Prummel, M. F., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 349–362.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Harrell, F. E. Jr. (2001). Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York, NY, Springer-Verlag, pp. 41–49.

  46. Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Golden-Kreutz, D. M., Thornton, L. M., Wells-Di Gregorio, S., Frierson, G. M., Jim, H. S., Carpenter, K. M., et al. (2005). Traumatic stress, perceived global stress, and life events: Prospectively predicting quality of life in breast cancer patients. Health Psychology, 24(3), 288–296.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Anderson, B. L., Anderson, B., & deProsse, C. (1989). Controlled prospective longitudinal study of women with cancer II: Psychological outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 692–697.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rowland, J. H., & Massie, M. J. (1998). Breast Cancer. In J. C. Holland (Ed.). Psycho-oncology (pp. 380–401), New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ganz, P. A., Guadagnoli, E., Landrum, M. B., Lash, T. L., Rakowski, W., & Silliman, R. A. (2003). Breast cancer in older women: Quality of life and psychosocial adjustment in the 15 months after diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21(21), 4027–4033.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Krahn, M., Bremner, K. E., Tomlinson, G., Ritvo, P., Irvine, J., & Naglie, G. (2007). Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Quality of the Life Research, 16, 509–522.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ramsey, S. D., Andersen, M. R., Etzioni, R., Moinpour, C., Peacock, S., Potosky, A., et al. (2000). Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer, 88(6), 1294–1303.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Caffo, O., Amichetti, M., Ferro, A., Lucenti, A., Valduga, F., & Galligioni, E. (2003). Pain and quality of life after surgery for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 80(1), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided by the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative IDEA, Father Sean O’Sullivan Research Centre, and the Department of Surgery, McMaster University. The authors would like to thank Sheila Sprague, Luann Wu, Nycholle Charpentier, Dana Wood, and Alycia Fridkin for assistance with data management. Conflicts of interest: Dr. Goldsmith was a collaborator on several research grants for the development of the HUI and has received payment from HUI Inc. for consulting fees for statistical analyses.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Hamilton Health Sciences and St. Joseph’s Healthcare, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8N 4A6

    Peter J. Lovrics, Sylvie D. Cornacchi & Francesco Barnabi

  2. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Peter J. Lovrics, Sylvie D. Cornacchi & Charles H. Goldsmith

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Tim Whelan & Charles H. Goldsmith

  4. Department of Medicine and Supportive Cancer Care Research Unit, Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Tim Whelan

  5. St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O’Sullivan Research Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Charles H. Goldsmith

Authors
  1. Peter J. Lovrics
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sylvie D. Cornacchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Barnabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tim Whelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charles H. Goldsmith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Lovrics.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix A Compliance with QOL assessments and pattern of missing data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lovrics, P.J., Cornacchi, S.D., Barnabi, F. et al. The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer: A prospective longitudinal study. Qual Life Res 17, 333–345 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9305-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9305-2

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Health Utilities Index
  • Quality of life
  • Responsiveness
  • SF-36