Scholarlink

Purpose <p>A low-risk cancer characterized by slow growth and excellent prognosis, papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) is increasingly managed with less invasive alternatives to surgical resection, including active surveillance and radiofrequency ablation. To inform shared decision-making and comparative-effectiveness models, treatment preferences/quality of life quantified by health utilities must be derived for PTMC. However, there is ambiguity regarding the population from which these should be elicited. We aimed to compare health state utility estimates for PTMC as derived from general population volunteers (GenPop) and thyroid cancer survivors (TCSurv).</p> Methods <p>GenPop and TCSurv completed a time trade-off task for 10 PTMC health states described by clinical vignettes. Health utilities were compared between groups with univariate and multivariable linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, and income. Subgroup analysis was performed for health states with and without treatment complications.</p> Results <p>70 GenPop and 72 TCSurv completed the surveys. GenPop reported lower utilities relative to TCSurv for all 10 health states, with an effect size of 0.044 attributed to participant group in the multivariable analysis (<i>p</i> = 0.01). This observation persisted in stratified analysis by treatment complication, with effect sizes 0.047 (<i>p</i> = 0.04) and 0.042 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) for uncomplicated and complicated groups, respectively. Health utilities were lower for complicated scenarios (effect size 0.067, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) compared to uncomplicated scenarios.</p> Conclusion <p>For 10 low-risk thyroid cancer health states, GenPop reported significantly lower health utilities than TCSurv. Health economists and healthcare delivery scientists should be aware of these differences when integrating health utilities into comparative-effectiveness research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Differences in health state valuation for small, low-risk thyroid cancer between general population and cancer survivors: a cross-sectional analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月23日

查看全文
  • Kendyl Carlisle,
  • Rebecca Kowalski,
  • Aprill N. Park,
  • Salome Ricci,
  • Kai Sun,
  • Carrie Cunningham,
  • Julia F. Slejko,
  • C. Daniel Mullins,
  • Yinin Hu

摘要

Purpose

A low-risk cancer characterized by slow growth and excellent prognosis, papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) is increasingly managed with less invasive alternatives to surgical resection, including active surveillance and radiofrequency ablation. To inform shared decision-making and comparative-effectiveness models, treatment preferences/quality of life quantified by health utilities must be derived for PTMC. However, there is ambiguity regarding the population from which these should be elicited. We aimed to compare health state utility estimates for PTMC as derived from general population volunteers (GenPop) and thyroid cancer survivors (TCSurv).

Methods

GenPop and TCSurv completed a time trade-off task for 10 PTMC health states described by clinical vignettes. Health utilities were compared between groups with univariate and multivariable linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, and income. Subgroup analysis was performed for health states with and without treatment complications.

Results

70 GenPop and 72 TCSurv completed the surveys. GenPop reported lower utilities relative to TCSurv for all 10 health states, with an effect size of 0.044 attributed to participant group in the multivariable analysis (p = 0.01). This observation persisted in stratified analysis by treatment complication, with effect sizes 0.047 (p = 0.04) and 0.042 (p < 0.01) for uncomplicated and complicated groups, respectively. Health utilities were lower for complicated scenarios (effect size 0.067, p < 0.001) compared to uncomplicated scenarios.

Conclusion

For 10 low-risk thyroid cancer health states, GenPop reported significantly lower health utilities than TCSurv. Health economists and healthcare delivery scientists should be aware of these differences when integrating health utilities into comparative-effectiveness research.