Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing health-state utility values in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a utility study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to elicit EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility values from patients with second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) pre- and post-progression.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in five hospitals in the Netherlands and the UK. Patients with mCRC were eligible if prescribed a second or subsequent line of therapy or best supportive care (BSC), received prior oxaliplatin in first-line therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of 0–2 at second-line initiation. Patients completed the EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and were categorized as pre- or post-progression. Chart data including patient demographics, clinical history, prior/current treatments and serious adverse events (SAEs) were collected. Mean utilities were estimated; uni- and multivariate analyses were conducted.

Results

Seventy-five patients were enrolled; 42 were pre-progression defined as second line or third line following an AE on second line and 33 were post-progression defined as third or subsequent therapy lines or BSC. Patient/disease characteristics and number of SAEs were similar between cohorts. Mean utility scores were 0.741 (SD = 0.230) and 0.731 (SD = 0.292) for pre- and post-progression cohorts, respectively. Compared to pre-progression, more patients reported increased anxiety/depression (36 vs. 12 %) and fewer problems with daily activities (64 vs. 38 %) post-progression. More patients pre-progression were on active treatment at enrolment (83 vs. 42 %) compared to post-progression.

Conclusions

This is the first real-world study to collect utilities for patients with second-line mCRC pre- and post-disease progression. Utility values were similar pre- and post-progression. To further explore the effect of radiological progression on utilities, longitudinal research is required that includes patients in palliative care centres.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van Cutsem E, Nordlinger E, Cedrvantes A (2010) Advanced colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for treatment. Ann Oncol 21(suppl 5):v93–v97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gallagher DJ, Kemeny N (2010) Metastatic colorectal cancer: from improved survival to potential cure. Oncology 78(3–4):237–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Adam R, Haller DG, Poston G et al (2010) Toward optimized front-line therapeutic strategies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer—an expert review from the International Congress on Anti-Cancer Treatment (ICACT) 2009. Ann Oncol 21:1579–1584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Grothey A, Sugrue MM, Purdie DM et al (2008) Bevacizumab beyond first progression is associated with prolonged overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a large observational cohort study (BRiTE). J Clin Oncol 26(33):5326–5334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2013) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available at http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9

  6. The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kind P (1996) The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, pp 191–201

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tappenden P, Jones R, Paisley S, Carroll C (2007) Systematic review and economic evaluation of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Health Technol Assess 11(12):1–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hind D, Tappenden P, Tumur I et al (2008) The use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 12(15):1–182

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bennett L, Zhao Z, Barber B et al (2011) Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab in first- or second-line treatment. Br J Cancer 105(10):1495–1502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Odom D, Barber B, Bennett L et al (2011) Health-related quality of life and colorectal cancer-specific symptoms in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic disease treated with panitumumab. Int J Color Dis 26(2):173–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Starling N, Tilden D, White J, Cunningham D (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment. Br J Cancer 96(2):206–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Corrie P, The MABEL study (2005) In Roche Submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. An open, uncontrolled, multicentre, phase II study of Erbitux (cetuximab) in combination with irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma expressing the epidermal growth factor receptor and having progressed on a defined irinotecan-based regimen as most recent treatment 2005. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12098/46368/46368.pdf. Submitted on July 23, 2009

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cancer therapy evaluation program, common terminology criteria for adverse events, version 3.0, DCTD, NCI, NIH, DHHS. March 31, 2003 (http://ctep.cancer.gov), Publish date: August 9, 2006

  16. MVH Group (1995) The measurement and valuation of health. Final report on the modeling of valuation tariffs. York Centre for Health Economics

  17. Best JH, Garrison LP, Hollingworth W, Ramsey SD et al (2010) Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy. Qual Life Res 19(3):391–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K (2009) Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX for metastatic colorectal cancer based on the NO16966 and NO16967 trials. Br J Cancer 101(1):12–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Muszbek N, Benedict A, Hortobagyi L (2013) Quality of the end of life—utility values in advanced solid tumors in technology appraisals in the UK. European CanCer Organisation (ECCO) Congress 2013. 27 September–1 October 2013; Amsterdam, Netherlands

  20. Batty AJ, Pennington B, Lebmeier M et al (2012) A comparison of patient and general-population utility values for advanced melanoma in health economic modeling. ISPOR 15th Annual European Congress. 3–10 November, 2012. Berlin, Germany

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Sanofi. The authors would like to thank the investigators, their site staff and patients who participated in this study, and Irina Proskorovsky (Evidera) and Karen Yeomans (UBC) for their contributions.

Conflict of interest

Florence Joulain is an employee of Sanofi. Sarah Naoshy and Sheikh Usman Iqbal were employees of Sanofi at the time of study conduct.

S.H. Goey is an employee (Medical Oncologist) of Tweesteden ziekenhuis. He received honoraria from Sanofi to advise on the research described in this article.

David Ferry was an employee of The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust. He received honoraria from Sanofi to advise on the research described in this article.

Dara Stein and Krista Payne are employed by United BioSource Corporation (UBC), which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government and non-governmentorganizations, and received funding from Sanofi to conduct the research described in this article. In this salaried position, Dara Stein and Krista Payne work with a variety of companies and organizations. They receive no payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered.

Noemi Muszbek is employed by Evidera, which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government and non-governmentorganizations, and received funding from Sanofi to conduct the research described in this article. In this salaried position, Noemi Muszbek works with a variety of companies and organizations. She receives no payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered.

Ethical standards

This study was approved by the appropriate ethics committees and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United BioSource Corporation, 185 Dorval Avenue, Suite 500, Dorval, QC, H9S 5J9, Canada

    Dara Stein & K. A. Payne

  2. Sanofi R&D, 1 av. Pierre Brossolette, Chilly Mazarin, Paris, 91385, France

    F. Joulain

  3. Sanofi, 500 Kendall St., Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA

    S. Naoshy & U. Iqbal

  4. Evidera, 1 Butterwick, 6th Floor, Hammersmith, London, W6 8DL, UK

    N. Muszbek

  5. The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, DY1 2HQ, UK

    D. Ferry

  6. Tweesteden ziekenhuis, Dr. Deelenlaan 5, Tilburg, 5042 AD, Netherlands

    S. H. Goey

Authors
  1. Dara Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Joulain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Naoshy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. U. Iqbal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Muszbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. K. A. Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Ferry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. S. H. Goey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dara Stein.

Additional information

S. Naoshy and U. Iqbal were Sanofi employees at the time of study.

D. Ferry was an employee of The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust at the time of this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stein, D., Joulain, F., Naoshy, S. et al. Assessing health-state utility values in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a utility study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Int J Colorectal Dis 29, 1203–1210 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1980-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1980-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation