Health State Utilities Associated with False-Positive Cancer Screening Results.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics - open
ISSN: 2509-4254
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoecon Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101700780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jan 2024
08 Jan 2024
Historique:
accepted:
14
09
2023
medline:
8
1
2024
pubmed:
8
1
2024
entrez:
8
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Early cancer detection can significantly improve patient outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Novel cancer screening approaches, including multi-cancer early detection tests, have been developed. Cost-utility analyses will be needed to examine their value, and these models require health state utilities. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disutility (i.e., decrease in health state utility) associated with false-positive cancer screening results. In composite time trade-off interviews using a 1-year time horizon, UK general population participants valued 10 health state vignettes describing cancer screening with true-negative or false-positive results. Each false-positive vignette described a common diagnostic pathway following a false-positive result suggesting lung, colorectal, breast, or pancreatic cancer. Every pathway ended with a negative result (no cancer detected). The disutility of each false positive was calculated as the difference between the true-negative and each false-positive health state, and because of the 1-year time horizon, each disutility can be interpreted as a quality-adjusted life-year decrement associated with each type of false-positive experience. A total of 203 participants completed interviews (49.8% male; mean age = 42.0 years). The mean (SD) utility for the health state describing a true-negative result was 0.958 (0.065). Utilities for false-positive health states ranged from 0.847 (0.145) to 0.932 (0.059). Disutilities for false positives ranged from - 0.031 to - 0.111 (- 0.041 to - 0.111 for lung cancer; - 0.079 for colorectal cancer; - 0.031 to - 0.067 for breast cancer; - 0.048 to - 0.088 for pancreatic cancer). All false-positive results were associated with a disutility. Greater disutility was associated with more invasive follow-up diagnostic procedures, longer duration of uncertainty regarding the eventual diagnosis, and perceived severity of the suspected cancer type. Utility values estimated in this study would be useful for economic modeling examining the value of cancer screening procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38189869
doi: 10.1007/s41669-023-00443-w
pii: 10.1007/s41669-023-00443-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : GRAIL, LLC
ID : EVA-26058
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hiom SC. Diagnosing cancer earlier: reviewing the evidence for improving cancer survival. Br J Cancer. 2015;31(112 Suppl 1):S1-5.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.23
McPhail S, Johnson S, Greenberg D, Peake M, Rous B. Stage at diagnosis and early mortality from cancer in England. Br J Cancer. 2015;31(112 Suppl 1):S108–15.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.49
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, Fedewa SA, Butterly LF, Anderson JC, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(3):145–64.
pubmed: 32133645
doi: 10.3322/caac.21601
Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.
pubmed: 21714641
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Cabana M, US Preventive Services Task Force, et al. Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325(10):962–70.
pubmed: 33687470
doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117
Bosetti C, Levi F, Rosato V, Bertuccio P, Lucchini F, Negri E, et al. Recent trends in colorectal cancer mortality in Europe. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(1):180–91.
pubmed: 20824701
doi: 10.1002/ijc.25653
Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1978–98.
pubmed: 34003220
doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.4417
Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, Cabana M, Caughey AB, US Preventive Services Task Force, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965–77.
pubmed: 34003218
doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.6238
Nahand JS, Taghizadeh-Boroujeni S, Karimzadeh M, Borran S, Pourhanifeh MH, Moghoofei M, et al. microRNAs: new prognostic, diagnostic, and therapeutic biomarkers in cervical cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234(10):17064–99.
pubmed: 30891784
doi: 10.1002/jcp.28457
Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, Barry MJ, Caughey AB, US Preventive Services Task Force, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674–86.
pubmed: 30140884
doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897
Siu AL. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96.
pubmed: 26757170
doi: 10.7326/M15-2886
van den Ende C, Oordt-Speets AM, Vroling H, van Agt HME. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40–49 years: a systematic review. Int J Cancer. 2017;141(7):1295–306.
pubmed: 28542784
doi: 10.1002/ijc.30794
Chen M, Zhao H. Next-generation sequencing in liquid biopsy: cancer screening and early detection. Hum Genom. 2019;13(1):34.
doi: 10.1186/s40246-019-0220-8
Tanos R, Thierry AR. Clinical relevance of liquid biopsy for cancer screening. Transl Cancer Res. 2018;7:S105–29.
doi: 10.21037/tcr.2018.01.31
World Health Organization. Cancer. 2022 [cited 2022 June 14]; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
Yassin MM, Peel AL, Thompson WD, Patton J, Ashton V, Leaper DJ. Does screen-detected breast cancer have better survival than symptomatic breast cancer? Asian J Surg. 2003;26(2):101–7.
pubmed: 12732494
doi: 10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60229-3
Hall IJ, Tangka FKL, Sabatino SA, Thompson TD, Graubard BI, Breen N. Patterns and trends in cancer screening in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;26(15):E97.
di Pietro M, Modolell I, O’Donovan M, Price C, Pilonis ND, Debiram-Beecham I, et al. Use of Cytosponge as a triaging tool to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(9):805–6.
pubmed: 32738939
pmcid: 7392598
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30242-9
Peled N, Fuchs V, Kestenbaum EH, Oscar E, Bitran R. An update on the use of exhaled breath analysis for the early detection of lung cancer. Lung Cancer (Auckl). 2021;12:81–92.
pubmed: 34429674
pmcid: 8378913
Yang HY, Wang YC, Peng HY, Huang CH. Breath biopsy of breast cancer using sensor array signals and machine learning analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):103.
pmcid: 7794369
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80570-0
Cristiano S, Leal A, Phallen J, Fiksel J, Adleff V, Bruhm DC, et al. Genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation in patients with cancer. Nature. 2019;570(7761):385–9.
pubmed: 31142840
pmcid: 6774252
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1272-6
Klein EA, Richards D, Cohn A, Tummala M, Lapham R, Cosgrove D, et al. Clinical validation of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test using an independent validation set. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(9):1167–77.
pubmed: 34176681
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.806
Lennon AM, Buchanan AH, Kinde I, Warren A, Honushefsky A, Cohain AT, et al. Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention. Science. 2020;369(6499):1–11.
Liu MC, Oxnard GR, Klein EA, Swanton C, Seiden MV, Consortium C. Sensitive and specific multi-cancer detection and localization using methylation signatures in cell-free DNA. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(6):745–59.
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011
Hackshaw A, Cohen SS, Reichert H, Kansal AR, Chung KC, Ofman JJ. Estimating the population health impact of a multi-cancer early detection genomic blood test to complement existing screening in the US and UK. Br J Cancer. 2021;125(10):1432–42.
pubmed: 34426664
pmcid: 8575970
doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01498-4
Aravanis AM, Lee M, Klausner RD. Next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA for early cancer detection. Cell. 2017;168(4):571–4.
pubmed: 28187279
doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.030
Kim A, Chung KC, Keir C, Patrick DL. Patient-reported outcomes associated with cancer screening: a systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):223.
pubmed: 35232405
pmcid: 8886782
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09261-5
McGovern PM, Gross CR, Krueger RA, Engelhard DA, Cordes JE, Church TR. False-positive cancer screens and health-related quality of life. Cancer Nurs. 2004;27(5):347–52.
pubmed: 15525861
doi: 10.1097/00002820-200409000-00003
Rasmussen JF, Siersma V, Malmqvist J, Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences of false positives in the Danish Lung Cancer CT Screening Trial: a nested matched cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6): e034682.
pubmed: 32503869
pmcid: 7279658
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034682
Brazier J, Ara R, Rowen D, Chevrou-Severac H. A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(Suppl 1):21–31.
pubmed: 29052157
doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0545-x
Li L, Severens JLH, Mandrik O. Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7): e0220148.
pubmed: 31339958
pmcid: 6655768
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220148
Bonomi AE, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA, Ludman E, Mohelnitzky A, Cannon EA, et al. Quality of life valuations of mammography screening. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(5):801–14.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9353-2
Gerard K, Johnston K, Brown J. The role of a pre-scored multi-attribute health classification measure in validating condition-specific health state descriptions. Health Econ. 1999;8(8):685–99.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199912)8:8<685::AID-HEC472>3.0.CO;2-8
Johnston K, Brown J, Gerard K, O’Hanlon M, Morton A. Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(2):213–22.
pubmed: 9720640
doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00065-3
Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Hammond CS, Hanna LG, Grove MR, Brown M, et al. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(6):954–61.
pubmed: 24756610
pmcid: 4071565
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981
Matza LS, Stewart KD, Lloyd AJ, Rowen D, Brazier JE. Vignette-based utilities: usefulness, limitations, and methodological recommendations. Value Health. 2021;24(6):812–21.
pubmed: 34119079
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.12.017
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. Version 1.0. 4th ed. Ottawa, Canada; 2017.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Process and methods guides: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 (PMG9). London, UK; 2013.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Australian Government DoH ed. Canberra, ACT; 2016.
Brennan VK, Dixon S. Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):677–91.
pubmed: 23771494
doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0066-1
Higgins A, Barnett J, Meads C, Singh J, Longworth L. Does convenience matter in health care delivery? A systematic review of convenience-based aspects of process utility. Value Health. 2014;17(8):877–87.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.2670
Howell TA, Matza LS, Jun MP, Garcia J, Powers A, Maloney DG. Health state utilities for adverse events associated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in large B-cell lymphoma. Pharmacoecon Open. 2022;6(3):367–76.
pubmed: 35129829
pmcid: 9043043
doi: 10.1007/s41669-021-00316-0
MacKeigan LD, O’Brien BJ, Oh PI. Holistic versus composite preferences for lifetime treatment sequences for type 2 diabetes. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(2):113–21.
pubmed: 10231073
doi: 10.1177/0272989X9901900201
Matza LS, Kim KJ, Yu H, Belden KA, Chen AF, Kurd M, et al. Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(6):819–27.
pubmed: 30887157
pmcid: 6652168
doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01036-3
Matza LS, Paramore LC, Stewart KD, Karn H, Jobanputra M, Dietz AC. Health state utilities associated with treatment for transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(3):397–407.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01136-0
Kuppermann M, Shiboski S, Feeny D, Elkin EP, Washington AE. Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? An application to prenatal diagnosis. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):42–55.
pubmed: 8994150
doi: 10.1177/0272989X9701700105
Attema AE, Brouwer WB. On the (not so) constant proportional trade-off in TTO. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):489–97.
pubmed: 20151207
pmcid: 2852526
doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9605-9
Matza LS, Boye KS, Feeny DH, Bowman L, Johnston JA, Stewart KD, et al. The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(8):979–90.
pubmed: 26611792
doi: 10.1007/s10198-015-0740-7
Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7(10):1060–96.
pubmed: 19930975
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2009.0070
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for lung cancer. CMAJ. 2016;188(6):425–32.
pmcid: 4818132
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.151421
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. CMAJ. 2016;188(5):340–8.
pmcid: 4786388
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.151125
Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(17):1672–80.
pubmed: 12711743
pmcid: 3157308
doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp021804
Klapman J, Malafa MP. Early detection of pancreatic cancer: why, who, and how to screen. Cancer Control. 2008;15(4):280–7.
pubmed: 18813195
doi: 10.1177/107327480801500402
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(4):614–22.
pubmed: 18024988
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm481
Roberts H, Walker-Dilks C, Sivjee K, Ung Y, Yasufuku K, Hey A, et al. Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer: guideline recommendations. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(10):1232–7.
pubmed: 24457233
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31829fd3d5
Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(2):594–642.
pubmed: 9024315
doi: 10.1053/gast.1997.v112.agast970594
Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, Flowers CR, Guerra CE, LaMonte SJ, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):250–81.
pubmed: 29846947
doi: 10.3322/caac.21457
Zhang L, Sanagapalli S, Stoita A. Challenges in diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(19):2047–60.
pubmed: 29785074
pmcid: 5960811
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i19.2047
American College of Radiology. Lung‐RADS® Version 1.1. 2019a [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Lung-RADS/LungRADSAssessmentCategoriesv1-1.pdf . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
American College of Radiology. Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). 2019b [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Lung-Rads . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for Patients-Lung Cancer Screening. 2020 [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/lung_screening-patient.pdf . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for Patients - Pancreatic Cancer. 2021 [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/pancreatic-patient.pdf . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
American Cancer Society. Breast Ultrasound. 2022a [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/breast-ultrasound.html . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
American Cancer Society. Breast MRI. 2022b [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/breast-mri-scans.html . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
American Cancer Society. Tips for Getting a Mammogram. 2022c [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/mammograms-what-to-know-before-you-go.html . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
American Cancer Society. Mammogram Basics. 2022d [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/mammogram-basics.html . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
Harvard Health Publishing, Harvard Medical School. Preparing for a colonoscopy. 2020 [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/preparing-for-a-colonoscopy . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
National Breast Cancer Foundation. Clinical Breast Exam. 2022 [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/clinical-breast-exam . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS). 2021 [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.pancan.org/facing-pancreatic-cancer/diagnosis/endoscopic-ultrasound-eus/ . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. Computed Axial Tomography (CAT or CT) Scan. 2022 [cited 2022 June 15]; https://www.pancan.org/facing-pancreatic-cancer/diagnosis/computed-tomography-ct-scan/ . Accessed Jun 15, 2022.
Janssen BM, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S5-13.
pubmed: 23900660
doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2
Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goni JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.
pubmed: 27084198
pmcid: 5023738
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1
Jiang R, Shaw J, Muhlbacher A, Lee TA, Walton S, Kohlmann T, et al. Comparison of online and face-to-face valuation of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(5):1433–44.
pubmed: 33247810
doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02712-1
Joshi N, Hensen M, Patel S, Xu W, Lasch K, Stolk E. Health state utilities for acute myeloid leukaemia: a time trade-off study. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(1):85–92.
pubmed: 30136178
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0704-8
Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Bansback N, Bryan S, Ohinmaa A, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105.
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447