ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2015
Catalog and comparison of societal preferences (utilities) for lung cancer health states: results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions Integrated Into Lung Cancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening in Lithuania: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Lung Cancer Screening in a Population from Northeast Italy Exposed to Both Asbestos and Smoking: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib versus placebo in resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: the perspective of the United States.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Computed Tomographic Screening Intervals for Patients at Moderate Risk of Lung Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Rapid On-Site Evaluation During Navigational Bronchoscopy.CHEST pulmonary · 2024Article
- Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.JAMA oncology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: A Simulation Study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2020Article
- A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Exercise Program for Lung Cancer Survivors After Curative-Intent Treatment.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden.PloS one · 2020Article
- Real-world health utility scores and toxicities to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Health-related quality of life and anxiety in the PAN-CAN lung cancer screening cohort.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2018Article
- Decision analytic modeling for the economic analysis of proton radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe EQ-5D and SF-6D are 2 health-related quality-of-life indexes that provide preference-weighted measures for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.
methodsThe National Cancer Institute's Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium included the EQ-5D and SF-12v2 in their survey of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. Utilities were calculated from patient-provided scores for each domain of the EQ-5D or the SF-6D. Utilities were calculated for categories of cancer type, stage, and treatment.
resultsThere were 5015 enrolled lung cancer patients with a baseline survey in CanCORS; 2396 (47.8%) completed the EQ-5D, and 2344 (46.7%) also completed the SF-12v2. The mean (standard deviation) utility from the EQ-5D was 0.78 (0.18), and from the SF-6D (derived from SF-12v2) was 0.68 (0.14). The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect, with 20% of patients reporting perfect scores, translating to a utility of 1.0. No substantial SF-6D floor effects were noted. Utilities increased with age and decreased with stage and comorbidities. Patient-reported (EQ-5D) visual analog scale scores for health status had a moderate (r = 0.48, p < 0.0001) positive correlation with utilities. A subset (n = 1474) completed follow-up EQ-5D questionnaires 11-13 months after diagnosis. Among these patients, there was a nonsignificant decrease in mean utility for stage IV and an increase in mean utility for stages I, II, and III.
conclusionThis study generated a catalog of community-weighted utilities applicable to societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer interventions and compared utilities based on the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Potential users of these scores should be aware of the limitations and think carefully about their use in specific studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.