Search

Objective To help facilitate economic evaluations of oncology treatments, we mapped responses on cancer-specific instrument to generic preference-based measures. Methods Cancer patients (n = 367) completed one cancer-specific instrument, the FACT-G, and two preference-based measures, the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Responses were randomly divided to form development (n = 184) and cross-validation (n = 183) samples. Relationships between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized linear models (GLM), and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression approaches. The performance of each model was assessed in terms of how well the responses to the cancerspecific instrument predicted EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE). Results Physical, functional, and emotional well-being domain scores of the FACT-G best explained the EQ-5D and SF-6D. In terms of accuracy of prediction as measured in RMSE, the CLAD model performed best for the EQ-5D (RMSE = 0.095) whereas the GLM model performed best for the SF-6D (RMSE = 0.061). The GLM predicted SF-6D scores matched the observed values more closely than the CLAD and OLS. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that the estimation of both EQ-5D and SF-6D utility indices using the FACT-G responses can be achieved. The CLAD model for the EQ-5D and the GLM model for the SF-6D are recommended. Thus, it is possible to estimate quality-adjusted life years for economic evaluation from studies where only cancer-specific instrument have been administered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which assessed the impact on survival of population-based access to new agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In the study, all patients with a first diagnosis of distant metastases in each of the time cohorts were identified and characterized, and their survival was compared. The results showed that survival in Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 was similar but survival was longer in Cohort 3.

The authors explore the significance of neoadjuvant trials in the search for new therapeutic strategies with the ability to assess response to systemic treatment. They discuss and offer comments on several studies, with an emphasis on the NeOAdjuvant Herceptin study of trastuzumab by Luca Gianni et al conducted among women with a locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. They discuss the clinical goals of neoadjuvant therapy, as well as the need to further exploit neoadjuvant trials in the search for new therapeutic strategies.