The Impact of Brain Metastases and Associated Neurocognitive Aspects on Health Utility Scores in EGFR Mutated and ALK Rearranged NSCLC: A Real World Evidence Analysis.
Brain metastases
EQ‐5D
Health utility scores
Metastatic lung cancer
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2019
07 2019
Historique:
received:
26
08
2018
accepted:
07
03
2019
pubmed:
7
4
2019
medline:
1
7
2020
entrez:
7
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In lung cancer, brain metastases (BM) and their treatment are associated with high economic burden and inferior health-related quality of life. In the era of targeted therapy, real world evidence through health utility scores (HUS) is critical for economic analyses. In a prospective observational cohort study (2014-2016), outpatients with stage IV lung cancer completed demographic and EQ-5D-3L surveys (to derive HUS). Health states and clinicopathologic variables were obtained from chart abstraction. Patients were categorized by the presence or absence of BM; regression analyses identified factors that were associated with HUS. A subset of patients prospectively completed neurocognitive function (NCF) tests and/or the FACT-brain (FACT-Br) questionnaire, which were then correlated with HUS (Spearman coefficients; regression analyses). Of 519 patients with 1,686 EQ-5D-3L-derived HUS, 94 (18%) completed NCF tests and 107 (21%) completed FACT-Br; 301 (58%) never developed BM, 24 (5%) developed first BM during study period, and 194 (37%) had BM at study entry. The sample was enriched (46%) for Having BM in lung cancer is not associated with inferior HUS in a population enriched for In the setting of
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In lung cancer, brain metastases (BM) and their treatment are associated with high economic burden and inferior health-related quality of life. In the era of targeted therapy, real world evidence through health utility scores (HUS) is critical for economic analyses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In a prospective observational cohort study (2014-2016), outpatients with stage IV lung cancer completed demographic and EQ-5D-3L surveys (to derive HUS). Health states and clinicopathologic variables were obtained from chart abstraction. Patients were categorized by the presence or absence of BM; regression analyses identified factors that were associated with HUS. A subset of patients prospectively completed neurocognitive function (NCF) tests and/or the FACT-brain (FACT-Br) questionnaire, which were then correlated with HUS (Spearman coefficients; regression analyses).
RESULTS
Of 519 patients with 1,686 EQ-5D-3L-derived HUS, 94 (18%) completed NCF tests and 107 (21%) completed FACT-Br; 301 (58%) never developed BM, 24 (5%) developed first BM during study period, and 194 (37%) had BM at study entry. The sample was enriched (46%) for
CONCLUSION
Having BM in lung cancer is not associated with inferior HUS in a population enriched for
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
In the setting of
Identifiants
pubmed: 30952820
pii: theoncologist.2018-0544
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0544
pmc: PMC6656458
doi:
Substances chimiques
EGFR protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e501-e509Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Sep 15;18(18):3302-17
pubmed: 10986064
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Nov 1;51(3):711-7
pubmed: 11597813
Eur J Cancer. 2002 Mar;38(4):487-96
pubmed: 11872340
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 1996;11(4):329-38
pubmed: 14588937
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004 Mar;19(2):203-14
pubmed: 15010086
Cancer. 2005 Jun 1;103(11):2344-8
pubmed: 15844174
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005 Jul;30(1):18-23
pubmed: 16043003
Neurosurgery. 2007 Feb;60(2):277-83; discussion 283-4
pubmed: 17290178
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Apr 1;25(10):1260-6
pubmed: 17401015
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 May 1;71(1):64-70
pubmed: 18406884
Lung Cancer. 2008 Dec;62(3):374-80
pubmed: 18467000
Lung Cancer. 2009 Aug;65(2):198-203
pubmed: 19091441
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Nov;10(11):1037-44
pubmed: 19801201
Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Dec 1;16(23):5873-82
pubmed: 21030498
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):703-8
pubmed: 21354373
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011 Dec;11(6):701-8
pubmed: 22098286
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jul 15;83(4):1238-45
pubmed: 22172909
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 1;30(4):419-25
pubmed: 22203767
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31115
pubmed: 22328929
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jan 1;31(1):65-72
pubmed: 23213105
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Apr;15(4):387-95
pubmed: 24621620
J Thorac Oncol. 2014 Nov;9(11):1625-33
pubmed: 25436797
Neuro Oncol. 2016 Mar;18(3):435-44
pubmed: 26385615
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jan 10;34(2):123-9
pubmed: 26438117
Ann Palliat Med. 2016 Jan;5(1):1-12
pubmed: 26841810
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;13(5):e195-e203
pubmed: 26990789
Cancer Treat Rev. 2016 Apr;45:139-62
pubmed: 27019457
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):577-89
pubmed: 27083334
Lung Cancer. 2016 Jun;96:101-7
pubmed: 27133758
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;35(7):809-810
pubmed: 28029324
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Jan;67(1):7-30
pubmed: 28055103
Clin Lung Cancer. 2017 Jul;18(4):388-395.e4
pubmed: 28111120
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;35(10):1070-1077
pubmed: 28113019
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 31;377(9):829-838
pubmed: 28586279
BMC Cancer. 2017 Jul 25;17(1):500
pubmed: 28743240
Ann Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;29(3):687-693
pubmed: 29293889
Cancer. 1995 Mar 1;75(5):1151-61
pubmed: 7850714