Utility Assessment in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer at Surin Hospital
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To study utilities in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: The research was a descriptive study collecting the data from medical chart and patient interview for their quality of life (QoL) during March to August 2017. Study samples were Thai patients with age at least 18 years who were receiving continuing care at Surin hospital, aware of their diagnosis, no problems in perception and communication, and willing to participate in the study. The data on QoL were collected using the EQ-5D-5L (European Quality of Life Measure-5 Domain). Results: The total number of participants was 65, with an average age of 59.3±12.2 years. Fifty-one patients were progression-free. The most common chemotherapy regimens were FOLFIRI (N=16), FOLFOX4 (N=14), and mFOLFOX6 (N=12). Fourteen patients were having disease progression. Eleven of them received chemotherapy while 3 of them received palliative care. The assessment with the EQ-5D-5L showed that majority of patients with progression free and patients with progression who received chemotherapy had no problems or slight problems in performing activities being asked in the EQ-5D-5L. On the other hands, patients with disease progression who received palliative care had severe or extremely severe problems in all domains. For patients with progression free, median utilities in those receiving FOLFIRI, mFOLFOX6 and FOLFOX4 were 0.88, 0.86, and 0.79, respectively. For patients with disease progression, median utility was 0.87 in those receiving chemotherapy and -0.28 in those receiving palliative care. Conclusion: In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were progression-free, median utilities among those with FOLFIRI, FOLFOX4, mFOLFOX6 were similar (0.79-0.88). For patients with disease progression, those receiving palliative care had extremely low utility compared to those receiving chemotherapy. The utilities obtained from this study can be used in the model for cost effectiveness analysis of alternatives for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the future.
Article Details
ผลการวิจัยและความคิดเห็นที่ปรากฏในบทความถือเป็นความคิดเห็นและอยู่ในความรับผิดชอบของผู้นิพนธ์ มิใช่ความเห็นหรือความรับผิดชอบของกองบรรณาธิการ หรือคณะเภสัชศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยสงขลานครินทร์ ทั้งนี้ไม่รวมความผิดพลาดอันเกิดจากการพิมพ์ บทความที่ได้รับการเผยแพร่โดยวารสารเภสัชกรรมไทยถือเป็นสิทธิ์ของวารสารฯ
References
2. National Cancer Institute. Hospital based cancer registry 2015. Bangkok: Pornsup Printing; 2017.
3. Surin Hospital Cancer Center. Surin hospital cancer statistic 2017. Surin: Rungthanakiat Publishing; 2017 .
4. Khuhaprema T, Srivatanakul P. Colon and rectum cancer in Thailand: an overview. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008; 38: 237–43.
5. Guyatt GH, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, Revicki DA, Symonds TL, Varricchio CG, et al. Exploration of the value of health-related quality-of-life information from clinical research and into clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc 2007;82:1229-39
6. Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, Mun pan W. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res 2015; 24: 3015-22.
7. EuroQol group. EQ-5D-5L questionnaire self-complete version on paper version 1.0 [online] 2014 [Dec 16, 2017]; Available from: www.euroqol. org/eq-5d-products/eq-5d-5l.html
8. Pattanaphesaj C, Thawoncharoensap M. EQ-5D-5L Thai version policy brief [online]. 2015 [cited [Dec, 2017]. Available from: www.hitap.net/documents/24 389
9. DeCosse J, Cennerazzo W. Quality-of-life manage ment of patients with colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 1997;47: 198-206.
10. Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, Dittus R. Utility valuation for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:1650-7.
11. Ramsey SD, Andersen MR, Etzioni R, Moinpour CM, et al. Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 88:1294-303.
12. Djalalov S , Rabeneck L, Tomlinson G, Bremner KE, Hilsden R, Hoch JS. A review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2014; 34: 809–18.
13. Riesco-Martínez MC, Berry SR, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, Cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequences of the use of epidermal growth factor receptor Inhibitors for wild-type KRAS unresectable metas- tatic colorectal cancer. J. Oncol. Pract 2016; 12: e710–e23.
14. 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 2014; 29:1203-10.
