TY - JOUR
T1 - Sensitivity of preference-based quality-of-life measures for economic evaluations in early-stage Melanoma
AU - Dieng, Mbathio
AU - Kasparian, Nadine A.
AU - Cust, Anne E.
AU - Costa, Daniel S.J.
AU - Tran, Anh
AU - Butow, Phyllis N.
AU - Menzies, Scott W.
AU - Mann, Graham J.
AU - Morton, Rachael L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/1
Y1 - 2018/1
N2 - IMPORTANCE The diagnosis of a life-threatening disease like melanoma can affect all aspects of a person's life, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychological aspects of melanoma such as fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Economic evaluations of psychological interventions require preference-based (utility) instruments that are sensitive to changes in well-being and HRQOL; however, very few studies have evaluated the sensitivity of these instruments when used for people with melanoma. OBJECTIVE To compare utility scores from the multiple-attribute instrument Assessment of Quality of Life-8-Dimension Scale (AQoL-8D) with the mapped utility scores of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M) and to investigate the sensitivity of both instruments in identifying the influence of FCR on HRQOL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This assessment of data from a randomized clinical trial of a psychoeducational intervention to reduce FCR, conducted at 3 high-risk melanoma clinics in Australia, evaluated 164 patients with early-stage melanoma and a high risk of developing a second primary melanoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The FACT-Mand AQoL-8Dwere used to assess HRQOL and FCR among the study participants. Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the total and subdomain scores of the 2 instruments, and the strength of associations was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing participants' HRQOL, demographic, and clinical characteristics using the ?2 test and F statistic. Both the FACT-M and AQoL-8D utilities were regressed on FCR Inventory (FCRI) severity scores to estimate the effect of elevated FCR on HRQOL. RESULTS A total of 164 participants completed the baseline questionnaires, but only 163 met all inclusion criteria and underwent the full analysis: 72 were women; 91 were men; and mean (SD) age was 58.2 (12.1) years. Both the AQoL-8D and FACT-M instruments showed good concurrent validity and could differentiate between relevant subgroups including level of FCRI severity. The AQoL-8D and FACT-M utilities were strongly correlated (r2 = 0.57). Respondents had a mean (SD) AQoL-8D utility of 0.77 (0.2), and a mean (SD) FACT-M utility score of 0.76 (0.07). High levels of FCRI severity were associated with a decrease in utility of 0.12 (95%CI, -0.19 to -0.05) as measured by AQoL-8D, and a decrease of 0.03 (95%CI, -0.05 to -0.01) as measured by the FACT-M. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE For economic evaluations of psychological interventions in melanoma, the AQoL-8D and FACT-M are valid measures of utility; however, the AQoL-8D demonstrates greater sensitivity to FCRI severity. Our results suggest a significant association between FCR and HRQOL.
AB - IMPORTANCE The diagnosis of a life-threatening disease like melanoma can affect all aspects of a person's life, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychological aspects of melanoma such as fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Economic evaluations of psychological interventions require preference-based (utility) instruments that are sensitive to changes in well-being and HRQOL; however, very few studies have evaluated the sensitivity of these instruments when used for people with melanoma. OBJECTIVE To compare utility scores from the multiple-attribute instrument Assessment of Quality of Life-8-Dimension Scale (AQoL-8D) with the mapped utility scores of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M) and to investigate the sensitivity of both instruments in identifying the influence of FCR on HRQOL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This assessment of data from a randomized clinical trial of a psychoeducational intervention to reduce FCR, conducted at 3 high-risk melanoma clinics in Australia, evaluated 164 patients with early-stage melanoma and a high risk of developing a second primary melanoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The FACT-Mand AQoL-8Dwere used to assess HRQOL and FCR among the study participants. Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the total and subdomain scores of the 2 instruments, and the strength of associations was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing participants' HRQOL, demographic, and clinical characteristics using the ?2 test and F statistic. Both the FACT-M and AQoL-8D utilities were regressed on FCR Inventory (FCRI) severity scores to estimate the effect of elevated FCR on HRQOL. RESULTS A total of 164 participants completed the baseline questionnaires, but only 163 met all inclusion criteria and underwent the full analysis: 72 were women; 91 were men; and mean (SD) age was 58.2 (12.1) years. Both the AQoL-8D and FACT-M instruments showed good concurrent validity and could differentiate between relevant subgroups including level of FCRI severity. The AQoL-8D and FACT-M utilities were strongly correlated (r2 = 0.57). Respondents had a mean (SD) AQoL-8D utility of 0.77 (0.2), and a mean (SD) FACT-M utility score of 0.76 (0.07). High levels of FCRI severity were associated with a decrease in utility of 0.12 (95%CI, -0.19 to -0.05) as measured by AQoL-8D, and a decrease of 0.03 (95%CI, -0.05 to -0.01) as measured by the FACT-M. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE For economic evaluations of psychological interventions in melanoma, the AQoL-8D and FACT-M are valid measures of utility; however, the AQoL-8D demonstrates greater sensitivity to FCRI severity. Our results suggest a significant association between FCR and HRQOL.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041118326&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.4701
DO - 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.4701
M3 - Article
SN - 2168-6068
VL - 154
SP - 52
EP - 59
JO - JAMA Dermatology
JF - JAMA Dermatology
IS - 1
ER -