Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature105904
Source
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:203
Publication Type
Article
Date
2013
Author
Paulos Teckle
Helen McTaggart-Cowan
Kim Van der Hoek
Stephen Chia
Barb Melosky
Karen Gelmon
Stuart Peacock
Author Affiliation
Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada. pteckle@bccrc.ca.
Source
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:203
Date
2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms - psychology
British Columbia
Colorectal Neoplasms - psychology
Female
Humans
Linear Models
Lung Neoplasms - psychology
Male
Patient Preference
Quality of Life - psychology
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Questionnaires - standards
Abstract
To help facilitate economic evaluations of oncology treatments, we mapped responses on cancer-specific instrument to generic preference-based measures.
Cancer patients (n = 367) completed one cancer-specific instrument, the FACT-G, and two preference-based measures, the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Responses were randomly divided to form development (n = 184) and cross-validation (n = 183) samples. Relationships between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized linear models (GLM), and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression approaches. The performance of each model was assessed in terms of how well the responses to the cancer-specific instrument predicted EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE).
Physical, functional, and emotional well-being domain scores of the FACT-G best explained the EQ-5D and SF-6D. In terms of accuracy of prediction as measured in RMSE, the CLAD model performed best for the EQ-5D (RMSE = 0.095) whereas the GLM model performed best for the SF-6D (RMSE = 0.061). The GLM predicted SF-6D scores matched the observed values more closely than the CLAD and OLS.
Our results demonstrate that the estimation of both EQ-5D and SF-6D utility indices using the FACT-G responses can be achieved. The CLAD model for the EQ-5D and the GLM model for the SF-6D are recommended. Thus, it is possible to estimate quality-adjusted life years for economic evaluation from studies where only cancer-specific instrument have been administered.
PubMed ID
24289488 View in PubMed
Less detail

A systematic review and Canadian consensus recommendations on the use of biomarkers in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature133382
Source
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Aug;6(8):1379-91
Publication Type
Article
Date
Aug-2011
Author
Peter M Ellis
Normand Blais
Dennis Soulieres
Diana N Ionescu
Meenakshi Kashyap
Geoff Liu
Barb Melosky
Tony Reiman
Phillippe Romeo
Frances A Shepherd
Ming-Sound Tsao
Natasha B Leighl
Author Affiliation
Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. peter.ellis@jcc.hhsc.ca
Source
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Aug;6(8):1379-91
Date
Aug-2011
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Canada
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - diagnosis - therapy
Clinical Trials as Topic
Consensus
Humans
Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis - therapy
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Tumor Markers, Biological - analysis
Abstract
Greater understanding of molecular pathways important in cell growth and proliferation of thoracic malignancies, particularly non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has resulted in intense clinical and translational research. There is now considerable interest in personalizing treatment based on an understanding of tumor histology and molecular abnormalities. However, there is a multiplicity of data, often with discordant results resulting in confusion and uncertainty among clinicians.
We conducted a systematic review and a consensus meeting of Canadian lung cancer oncologists and pathologists to make recommendations on the use of biomarkers in NSCLC. PubMed covering 2005 to March 2010 was searched using MESH terms for NSCLC and randomized trials, plus text words for the biomarkers of interest. Conference proceedings from 2005 to 2009 ASCO, ESMO, IASLC, and USCAP were also searched. The articles were reviewed by pairs of oncologists and pathologists to determine eligibility for inclusion.
Ten oncologists and pathologists reviewed and summarized the literature at a meeting attended by 37 individuals. Draft recommendations were formulated and agreed upon by consensus process. There is some evidence that histology is prognostic for survival. There is evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials to recommend the following: histologic subtype is predictive of treatment efficacy and for some agents toxicity. Immunohistochemistry testing should be performed on NSCLC specimens that cannot be classified accurately with conventional H&E staining. As EGFR mutations are predictive of benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitors, diagnostic NSCLC samples should be routinely tested for EGFR-activating mutations. Clinical data on K-RAS mutations are inconsistent, therefore testing is not recommended. There is insufficient evidence to recommend other biomarker testing. No biomarkers to date reliably predict improved efficacy for anti-VEGF therapy. Routine assessment for EML4/ALK mutations is not recommended at present, although emerging data suggest that it may become valuable in the near future.
Assessment of NSCLC biomarkers is becoming increasingly important. Therefore, adequate diagnostic material must be obtained for accurate histologic subtyping and relevant molecular biology assays.
Notes
Comment In: J Thorac Oncol. 2012 Apr;7(4):773-4; author reply 77422425934
PubMed ID
21709590 View in PubMed
Less detail