Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benefit Valuation in Economic Evaluation of Cancer Therapies

A Systematic Review of the Published Literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Generic measures of benefit which employ individuals’ preferences, such as the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), are, in principle, the most appropriate outcome measure to use in the economic evaluation of cancer therapies. They can reflect the trade-offs between health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and length of life, between different dimensions of HR-QOL and between the process (e.g. convenience) and outcome characteristics of treatments.

This paper reviews the methods literature on preference-based measures of benefit in economic evaluation, with the aim of establishing good practice for applied studies using these methods. A systematic review of applied economic evaluations of cancer therapies which have used these types of benefit measure was performed with the aim of establishing whether studies in this area adhere to good practice. In total, 29 studies were reviewed, and the results showed that, in general, good methods are not being adopted. This may be due, in part, to authors not having the space in journals to detail their methods fully, but it is likely also to reflect the fact that good methods for the use of preference-based measures of benefit in economic evaluation have not been adequately disseminated.

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. Elixhauser A, Luce BR, Taylor WR. Health care CBA/CEA: an update in the growth and composition of the literature. Med Care 1993; 31 (7): 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pritchard C. Trends in economic evaluation: Office of Health Economics (OHE) briefing. London: OHE, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  4. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Fallacy of the five year survival in lung cancer. N Engl JMed 1978; 299: 1397–401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 982–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fowler FJ, Cleary PD, Massagli MP, et al. Describing and measuring the values of health states: the role of reluctance to give up life in the measurement of the values of health states. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS,Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res 1980; 28: 206–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 299–308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gafni A. The quality of QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years): do they measure what they least intend to measure? Health Policy 1989; 13: 1–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ryan M, Shackley P. Viewpoint: assessing the benefits of health care: how far should we go? Qual Health Care 1995; 4: 207–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mehrez A, Gafni A. The health-years equivalent: how to measurethem using standard gamble approach. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 140–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Healthy-years equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: pursuit of progress. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 287–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ 1999; 8: 25–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nord E. An alternative to QALYs: the saved young life equivalent (SAVE). BMJ 1992; 305: 875–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nord E. The person-tradeoff approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 201–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zarnke KB, Levine MAH, O’Brien BJ. Cost-benefit analyses in the health care literature: don’t judge a study by its label. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 813–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Brien B, Goeree R, Gafni A. Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical: a feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Med Care 1998; 36: 370–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland EHJ, Tibshirani R, et al. The measurement of patients’ values in medicine. Med Decis Making 1982; 2: 449–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences I: measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 345–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 459–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences III: population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 585–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, et al. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University, 1990. CHEPA working paper no.: 90–9

  23. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: allocating resources to health care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (BESPE). A proposal for methodological guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Gent: BESPE, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  26. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) and Department of Health. Pharmaceutical industry and Department of Health agree guidelines for the economic analysis of medicines [press release]. London: ABPI, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  27. Canadian Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (CCHOTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa (ON): CCHOTA, 1997 28. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classifications systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 490–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Brazier J, Deverill M. Acomparison of five multi-attribute utility scales. A Health Economist Study Group Presentation; 1998 Jan 5–7; Sheffield

  30. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 1993; 58: 4601–14

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 82–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, et al. Comparison of time-tradeoff utilities and rating scale values of cancer patients and their relatives: evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 132–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 155–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Feeny DH, Torrance GW. Incorporating utility-based quality of life assessment measures in clinical trials. Med Care 1989; 27: S190–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 559–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. McNeil BJ, Pauke SG, Sox HC, et al. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1259–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al. Describing health states: methodologic issue in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 1984; 22: 543–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Connor AMC, Boyd NF, Warde P, et al. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 811–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gerard K, Dobson M, Hall J. Framing and labelling effects in health descriptions: quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 77–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, et al. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 58–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes [chapter 4]. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 82–134

    Google Scholar 

  43. Loewenstein GF, Prelec D. Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychol Rev 1993; 100: 91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Parsonage M, Neuberger H. Discounting and health benefits. Health Econ 1992; 1: 71–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Cairns J. Discounting and health benefits: another perspective. Health Econ 1992; 1: 76–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Department of Health. Policy appraisal and health. London: Department of Health, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  47. HM Treasury. Economic appraisal in central government: a technical guide for government departments. London: HMSO, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lipscomb J, Weinstein MC, Torrance, GW. Time preference [chapter 7]. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 214–46

    Google Scholar 

  49. O’Brien BJ, Drummond MF, Labelle RJ, et al. In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care 1994; 32: 150–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Manning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis [chapter 8]. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 247–75

    Google Scholar 

  51. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3: 95–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Department of Health. Register of cost-effectiveness studies. London: Department of Health, Economics and Operational Research Division, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bennett CL, Matchar D, McCrory D, et al. Cost-effective models for flutamide for prostate carcinoma patients. Am Cancer Soc 1996; 11 (9): 1854–61

    Google Scholar 

  54. Brown ML, Nayfield SG, Shilbley LM. Adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: economics returns to research and cost-effectiveness. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 424–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Desch CE, Hillner BE, Smith TJ, et al. Should the elderly receive chemotherapy for node-negative breast cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis examining total and active life-expectancy outcomes. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 777–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Hillner BE. Financial costs, benefits, and patient risk preferences in node-negative breast cancer: insights from a decision analysis model. Recent Results Cancer Res 1993; 127: 277–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with non-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 160–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. A model of chemotherapy in node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 11: 143–9

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Should women with node-negative breast cancer receive adjuvant chemotherapy? Insights from a decision analysis model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1992; 23: 17–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE. Assessing the cost effectiveness of adjuvant therapies in early breast cancer using a decision analysis model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993; 25: 97–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Smith TJ, Hillner BE. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 771–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Graf W, et al. Cost-effectiveness of palliative chemotherapy in advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 267–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Goel V, Detsky AS. A cost-utility analysis of preoperative total parenteral nutrition. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 183–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Goodwin PJ, Feld R, Evans WK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cancer chemotherapy: an economic evaluation of a randomized trial in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1537–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Hillner BE, Kirkwood JM, Atkins MB, et al. Economic analysis of adjuvant interferon alfa-2b in high-risk melanoma based on projections from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1684. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2351–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in metastatic breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc 1992; 267: 2055–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hutton J, Brown M, Abrams K, et al. A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 Suppl. 2: 8–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kattan MW, Inoue Y, Giles FJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon and conventional chemotherapy in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 541–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Kennedy W, Reinharz D, Tessier G, et al. Cost utility of chemotherapy and best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 4: 316–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Launois R, Reboul-Marty J, Henry B, et al. A cost-utility analysis of second-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10: 504–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Liberato NL, Quaglini S, Barosi G. Cost-effectiveness of interferon alfa in chronic myelogenous leukemia. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2673–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Mehta M, Noyes W, Graig B, et al. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of radiosurgery vs. resection for single brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol 1997; 39: 445–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Nord E, Wisloff F, Hjorth M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of melphalan plus prednisone with and without interferon-alpha-2b in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from a randomised controlled trial. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12: 89–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Norum J, Angelsen V. Chemotherapy in gastric cancer: an economic evaluation of the FAM (5-fluorouracil, adriamycin, mitomycin C) versus ELF (etoposide, leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil) regimens. J Chemother 1995; 7: 455–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Norum J, Angelsen V, Wist E, et al. Treatment costs in Hodgkin’s disease: a cost-utility analysis. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 1510–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Norum J, Vonen B, Olsen JA, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil and levamisole) in Dukes’B and C colorectal carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 65–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Ortega A, Dranitsaris OA, Sturgeon J, et al. Cost-utility analysis of paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 66: 454–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Smith RD, Hall J, Gurney H, et al. A cost-utility approach to the use of 5-flourouracil and levamisole as adjuvant chemotherapy for Dukes’ C colonic carcinoma. Med J Aust 1993; 158: 319–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, de Haes JCJM, et al. Surveillance versus adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage I non-seminomatous testicular cancer: a decision analysis. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 2267–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Weeks JC, Tierney MR, Weinstein MC. Cost effectiveness of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 81–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Zbrozek AS, Cantor SB, Cardenas MP, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. AmJ Hosp Pharm 1994; 51: 1555–63

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Kaplan RM. Quality of life assessment for cost/utility studies in cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 1993; 19: 85–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Cole BF, et al. A quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWIST) analysis of adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy for resectable rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 1039–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Simes J, et al. Costs and benefits of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a quality-adjusted survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 36–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Gerard K. Cost-utility analysis in practice: a policy maker’s guide to the state of the art. Health Policy 1992; 21: 249–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Nord E. Toward quality assurance in QALY calculations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 1: 37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JC. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving? Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 402–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysisin health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, England

    Jackie Brown

  2. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, England

    Mark Sculpher

Authors
  1. Jackie Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Sculpher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jackie Brown.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, J., Sculpher, M. Benefit Valuation in Economic Evaluation of Cancer Therapies. Pharmacoeconomics 16, 17–31 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916010-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916010-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation