MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P4-12-11: Eq-5d-5l utility scores for patients with breast cancer

2022· article· en· W4220883416 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sofía Torres, Ahmed M. Bayoumi, Maureen Trudeau, Ana Beatriz Kinupe Abrahão, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Murray Krahn, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEQ-5DMedicineVisual analogue scaleBreast cancerAnxietyDepression (economics)Quality of life (healthcare)ReimbursementMetastatic breast cancerCancerPhysical therapyHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDiseaseHealth careInternal medicinePsychiatryHealth related quality of life

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The EuroQol- 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) is a generic patient-reported outcome measure widely used to capture meaningful change in health-related quality of life between treatments to inform drug and health technology reimbursement decision making. The EQ-5D-5L (5 level) consists of 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Each dimension has 5 levels, ranging from 1 “no problems” to 5 “extreme problems”, generating 3125 distinct health states (HS). The VAS score ranges from 0 (worst health imaginable) to 100 (best health imaginable). We used Canadian Index values to calculate community-weighted utility scores for 5 pre-defined breast cancer (BC) disease states.Methods: This cross-sectional study included adult women diagnosed with stage I to IV BC, who completed EQ-5D-5L, during outpatient clinic visits at two academic cancer centres in Toronto. Participants were classified into 5 disease states, considered relevant both to clinical practice and economic modeling, ranging from primary breast cancer to metastatic disease. EQ-5D-5L scores were described for each disease state, and mean utility scores and VAS scores were calculated.Results: 549 women were included; the mean age was 57 (SD 12) years; 72% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0. A majority reported “Slight” to “Moderate” problems for the “Pain/Discomfort” (60%) and “Anxiety/Depression” (55%) dimensions of EQ-5D-5L; in all other dimensions, most patients reported “No problems”. As expected, patients with metastatic BC had the highest proportion of reported problems. The mean EQ-5D-5L index score was 0.83 (SD 0.13; range 0.36 to 0.95), with a distribution skewed towards full health and a ceiling effect of 20% (n=110; Table 1). Only 126 different self-reported health states were observed in our patient population. Mean VAS was 75 (SD 17.5; range 10 to 100). For early BC, mean index scores were: 0.87 (n=49; SD 0.07) for patients on chemotherapy (+/-targeted therapy); 0.85 (n=212; SD 0.12) for patients on endocrine treatment (+/-targeted therapy); 0.79 (n=16; SD 16) for patients on targeted therapy; and 0.84 (n=129; SD 0.14) for patients not receiving systemic therapy. For metastatic BC, mean index scores were: 0.79 (n=36, SD 14) for patients on chemotherapy (+/-targeted therapy); 0.80 (n=79, SD 0.14) for patients on endocrine treatment (+/-targeted therapy); 0.69 (n=8; SD 0.19) for patients on targeted therapy; and 0.77 (n=20; SD 0.14) for patients not receiving systemic therapy.Conclusions: BC had an impact mainly in the “Pain/Discomfort” and “Anxiety/Depression” dimensions of EQ-5D-5L. A high ceiling effect was observed in this patient population, despite using the 5L version of EQ-5D. EQ-5D-5L health utilities were significantly lower for metastatic BC, but no significant differences were found among various early-stage BC states. Table 1.- Mean EQ-5D-5L Index and VAS scoresEQ-5D-5LIndex ScoresVASDisease StateN (%)Mean (SD)Min-MaxMean (SD)Min-Max1st year after primary BC146 (27)0.85 (0.12)*0.23-0.9576.5(16.6)10-1001st year after recurrence or primary BC13 (2)0.78 (0.21)0.13-0.9568.9(23.3)20-1002nd-5th year after a primary BC or recurrence treated with curative intent185 (34)0.84 (0.11)*0.21-0.9578.3(14.7)36-1006th and following years after a primary BC or recurrence treated with curative intent62 (11)0.86 (0.14)*0.36-0.9581.0(15.6)20-100Metastatic BC143 (26)0.78 (0.14)0.29-0.9567.3(19.2)21-100Total549 (100)0.83 (0.13)0.13-0.9575.0(17.5)10-100*significant difference was found between these disease states and metastatic diseases (P < 0.05). Citation Format: Sofia Torres, Ahmed Bayoumi, Maureen Trudeau, Ana Beatriz Kinupe Abrahao, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Murray Krahn, Geoffrey Liu. Eq-5d-5l utility scores for patients with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-11.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.520
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.025 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→