Quality of Life Research

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 587–593

A longitudinal study of health related quality of life and utility measures in patients with advanced breast cancer

  • David J. Perez
  • Sheila M. Williams
  • Elizabeth A. Christensen
  • Rob O. McGee
  • Alastair V. Campbell
Article

Abstract

Health related quality of life (HRQOL) measures are now accepted as indicators of efficacy in the palliative treatment of cancer. Utility measures may also provide valuable information yet they have been applied less frequently. To assess the application of a time trade-off (TTO) utility measure and its concordance with the Spitzer uniscale and quality of life index (QLI) 38 women with advanced, symptomatic breast cancer were studied over a 12 month period. The correlation coefficient for QLI and TTO values was 0.54 and for uniscale and TTO 0.62. Using generalized estimating equations the regression of TTO scores on QLI and uniscale scores was significant at baseline. In longitudinal analyses results were significant only for QLI. Although all participants completed the HRQOL measures only 24 (63%) were prepared to trade time. The remaining 14 (32%) stated they felt too well to trade. Those prepared to trade time recorded significantly worse mean HRQOL scores throughout the study compared to those who felt too well to trade and had tumors which showed a poorer response to therapy. In this preliminary study utility and HRQOL scores were generally favorable throughout the 12 month study period and showed fair to moderate concordance. Further research in larger patient groups is required to better define the relationships between utility and HRQOL measures.

Cancer Measurement Quality of life Trade off Utility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Osoba D. Lessons learned from measuring health related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12(3): 608–616.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ganz P. Quality of life and the patient with cancer. Cancer 1994; 74: 1445–1452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health related quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987; 40(6): 593–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility based approaches to the measurement of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477–487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perez DJ, McGee R, Campbell AV, et al. A comparison of time trade of and quality of life measures in patients with advanced cancer. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 133–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell A, Guyatt G, Singer J, et al. Quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1988; 10(3): 306–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D. The use of generic and specific quality of life measures in hemodialysis patients treated with erythropoietin. Contr Clin Trials 1991; 12: 168S–179S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsevat J, Goldman L, Lamas GA, et al. Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care 1991; 29: 1153–1159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Grover SA. Comparing a health status instrument with conventional utility instruments. (Abstract) Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 451.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsevat J, Solzan JG, Tolan KK, et al. Health status and utilities of HIV+ and primary care patients. (Abstract) Clin Res 1992; 40: 569A.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherbourne C, Sturm R, Wells KB. Development of utility scores for the SF-12. (Abstract) Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 721.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. J Chron Dis 1981; 34: 585–597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coates A, Gebski V, Signorini D, et al. Prognostic value of quality of life scores during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 1833–1838.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 2 — correlation between subjects. Br Med J 1995; 310: 633.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeger SL, Liang K-Y. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986; 42: 121–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Handler RM, Hymes LM, Nease Jnr RF. Effect of locus of control in consideration of future consequences on time trade-off utilities for current health. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 54–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen SR, Mount BM, Tomas JJN, Mount LF. Existential wellbeing is an important determinant of quality of life. Cancer 1996; 77: 576–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Breetvelt IS, Van Dam FSAM. Underreporting by cancer patients: The case of response-shift. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32(9): 981–987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schlenk VA, Erlen JA, Dunbar-Jacob J, et al. Health related quality of life and chronic disorders: A comparison of cross studies using the MOS SF-36. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 57–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Strouse TB, et al. Psychosocial status in chronic illness. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 506–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fromm K, Andrykowski MA, Hunt J. Positive and negative psychosocial sequelae of bone marrow transplantation: Applications for quality of life assessment. J Behav Med 1996; 19(3): 221–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weeks J, O'Leary J, Fairclough D, et al. The ‘Q-TILITY INDEX': A new tool for assessing health related quality of life and utilities in clinical trials and clinical practice. (Abstract) Proc ASCO 1994; 13: 436.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gelber RD, Cole BF, Goldhirsch A, et al. Adjuvant therapy plus tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen alone for post-menopausal breast cancer: Meta-analysis of quality adjusted survival. Lancet 1996; 347: 1066–1071.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drummond MF, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Perez
    • 1
  • Sheila M. Williams
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Christensen
    • 1
  • Rob O. McGee
    • 2
  • Alastair V. Campbell
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MedicineDunedin School of MedicineDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Preventive and Social MedicineDunedin School of MedicineDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Bioethics Research CentreDunedin School of MedicineDunedinNew Zealand
  4. 4.Centre for Ethics in MedicineBristol Medical SchoolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations