Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using a Chinese time trade-off approach to explore the health utility level and quality of life of cancer patients in urban China: a multicentre cross-sectional study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A quality of life assessment is useful in identifying a specific health impact on patients who are suffering from various medical conditions. This study estimated the quality of life among patients with cancers of the lungs, breast, colorectum, oesophagus, liver, and stomach in urban China and evaluates the associated factors.

Methods

This study employed a random cluster sampling strategy to recruit patients with lung, breast, colorectal, oesophageal, liver, or stomach cancer from eleven third-grade class-A (the highest level) hospitals in Beijing between October 2013 and May 2014. We performed a quality of life survey that included solicitation of sociodemographic and clinical information and the use of a EuroQoL five-dimension three-level questionnaire. We applied the Chinese time trade-off method to calculate the health utility values, which were transformed into binary variables (using the median as the cut-off). In addition, multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the factors associated with the quality of life.

Results

A total of 637 patients (91 with lung cancer, 152 with breast cancer, 60 with colorectal cancer, 108 with oesophageal cancer, 154 with liver cancer, and 72 with stomach cancer) were included in this study; the medians of the health utility values were 0.780, 0.800, 0.800, 0.860, 0.800, and 0.870, respectively. The most common concerns for patients of all six cancer types were pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. The reported health status of patients was associated with various demographic and clinical variables.

Conclusion

This study highlighted that pain relief and psychological support are important aspects of patient management for those with these types of cancer. Individuals with factors associated with a poorer quality of life should be targets for additional support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Cancer Screening Programme in Urban China, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under licence for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Cancer Screening Programme in Urban China.

References

  1. World Health Organization (2018) Cancer. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer. Accessed 21 Jan 2019

  2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. International Agency for Research on Cancer WHO (2018) Cancer Today. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/. Accessed 21 Jan 2019

  4. GLOBOCAN (2018) Estimated number of new cases in 2018, Asia, China, both sexes, all ages. In: World Heal. Organ. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-table?v=2018&mode=cancer&mode_population=countries&population=900&populations=935_160&key=asr&sex=0&cancer=39&type=0&statistic=5&prevalence=0&population_group=0&ages_group%5B%5D=0&ages_group%5B%5D=17&nb_items=5&gr. Accessed 22 May 2019

  5. Bland KL, Kosir MA (2019) Improving the quality of life in breast cancer survivors at risk for lymphedema. In: Surgery (United States). Mosby Inc., pp 686–690

  6. Kumar V, Cohen JT, Van Klaveren D et al (2018) Risk-targeted lung cancer screening a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 168:161–169. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-1401

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sturza J (2010) A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer. Med Decis Mak 30:685–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10369004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, Mcguire A (2009) QALYs: the basics the facts how are QALYs used? 1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x

  9. EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J (1993) The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11:570–579. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Räsänen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynänen OP, Roine R (2006) Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22:235–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462306051051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Graham J, Spiliopoulou P, Arbuckle R, Bridge JA, Cassidy J (2017) A pilot study of subjective well-being in colorectal cancer patients and their caregivers. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 8:111–119. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S141815

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Labbé C, Leung Y, Silva Lemes JG et al (2017) Real-world EQ5D health utility scores for patients with metastatic lung cancer by molecular alteration and response to therapy. Clin Lung Cancer 18:388–395.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2016.12.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Doherty MK, Leung Y, Su J et al (2018) Health utility scores from EQ-5D and health-related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer: a real-world cross-sectional study. Dis Esophagus 31. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy058

  16. Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Lambin P, Boersma LJ (2009) Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D (2007) Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5:70. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-70

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Pike J, Maglinte G, Rider A, Cocks K, Taylor F, Contente M, Calvo E (2017) Predicting EQ-5D utility index scores for gastric cancer patients in Japan: a preliminary model. Value Health 20:A447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin H-W, Lloyd A (2007) Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 25:365–384. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bailey H, Kind P (2010) Preliminary findings of an investigation into the relationship between national culture and EQ-5D value sets. Qual Life Res 19:1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9678-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095–1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ (2005) US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43:203–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T, Hamashima C, Hisashige A, Tamura M (2002) Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 11:341–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, Gao C, Luo N (2014) Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health 17:597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang H, Pan Y, Guo C et al (2018) Health-related quality of life among rural residents aged 45−69 years in Hua County, Henan Province, China: results of ESECC trial for esophageal cancer screening with endoscopy. Chin J Cancer Res 30:240–253. https://doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2018.02.07

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu Q, Zeng H, Xia R, Chen G, Liu S, Zhang Z, Liu Y, Guo G, Song G, Zhu Y, Wu X, Song B, Liao X, Chen Y, Wei W, Chen W, Zhuang G (2018) Health-related quality of life of esophageal cancer patients in daily life after treatment: a multicenter cross-sectional study in China. Cancer Med 7:5803–5811. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1817

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhu J, Wang L, Huang H et al (2019) Short-term impact of breast cancer screening intervention on health-related quality of life in China: a multicentre cross-sectional survey. Psychooncology. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5160

  28. EuroQol Research Foundation (2018) EQ-5D-3L User Guide. Available from: http://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides. Accessed 23 May 2019

  29. Ding H, Yang Y, Cheng X et al (2017) Reliability and validity of EQ-5D-3L and FACT in Beijing’s patients with cancer and precancerosis. Tumor 37. https://doi.org/10.3781/j.issn.1000-7431.2017.22.242

  30. Liu L, Ding H, Yan X et al (2017) Influence factors of the health related quality of life among residents-based on the cancer screening program in urban, Beijing. Journal of Public Health and Preventive Medicine 28:6–10

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shi J-F, Huang H-Y, Guo L-W, Shi D, Gu XY, Liang H, Wang L, Ren JS, Bai YN, Mao AY, Liu GX, Liao XZ, Zhang K, He J, Dai M (2016) Quality-of-life and health utility scores for common cancers in China: a multicentre cross-sectional survey. Lancet 388:S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31956-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chouaid C, Agulnik J, Goker E, Herder GJM, Lester JF, Vansteenkiste J, Finnern HW, Lungershausen J, Eriksson J, Kim K, Mitchell PLR (2013) Health-related quality of life and utility in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a prospective cross-sectional patient survey in a real-world setting. J Thorac Oncol 8:997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318299243b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Iyer S, Taylor-Stokes G, Roughley A (2013) Symptom burden and quality of life in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in France and Germany. Lung Cancer 81:288–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.03.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim S-H, Jo M-W, Lee J-W, Lee HJ, Kim JK (2015) Validity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for breast cancer patients in Korea. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12955-015-0399-X

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Huang W, Yang J, Liu Y, Liu C, Zhang X, Fu W, Shi L, Liu G (2018) Assessing health-related quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer using EQ-5D-5L: a cross-sectional study in Heilongjiang of China. BMJ Open 8:e022711. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022711

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ryu M, Hwang J-I (2019) Cancer site differences in the health-related quality of life of Korean cancer survivors: results from a population-based survey. Public Health Nurs 36:144–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. World Health Organization (2013) WHO’s cancer pain ladder for adults. In: WHO. https://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/painladder/en/. Accessed 31 May 2019

  38. Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burström K (2011) Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Qual Life Res 20:309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhou Z, Zhou Z, Li D (2015) Analyzing the health-related quality of life of urban and rural residents in Shaanxi: estimation based on the EQ-5D value sets. Chinese Health Economics 34:13–16

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang B, Hao N, Zhang X (2017) Factors influencing the psychology and quality of life in lung cancer patients. Saudi Med J 38:948–951. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.9.18532

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Wong CKH, Lam CLK, Poon JTC, Kwong DLW (2013) Clinical correlates of health preference and generic health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal neoplasms. PLoS One 8:e58341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Miller RC, Atherton PJ, Kabat BF, Fredericksen MB, Geno DM, Deschamps C, Jatoi A, Sloan JA, Romero Y (2010) Marital status and quality of life in patients with esophageal Cancer or Barrett’s esophagus: the Mayo Clinic esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s esophagus registry study. Dig Dis Sci 55:2860–2868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-1100-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bae J-M, Kim S, Kim Y-W, Ryu KW, Lee JH, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Hong SK, Park SM, You CH, Kim JH, Lee MK, Yun YH (2006) Health-related quality of life among disease-free stomach cancer survivors in Korea. Qual Life Res 15:1587–1596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9000-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Svedlund J, Sullivan M, Liedman B, Lundell L, Sjödin I (1997) Quality of life after gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma: controlled study of reconstructive procedures. World J Surg 21:422–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00012265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tianliang B (2017) People’s daily: more than 1.3 billion people are covered by basic medical insurance in China. In: People’s Dly. http://www.gov.cn/guowuyuan/2017-10/05/content_5229626.htm. Accessed 27 Apr 2020

  46. Mercier C, Dirix P, Ost P, Billiet C, Joye I, Vermeulen P, Lievens Y, Verellen D (2019) A phase III randomized-controlled, single-blind trial to improve quality of life with stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with painful bone metastases (ROBOMET). BMC Cancer 19:876. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6097-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China

    Hanyue Ding, Jiaye Lin & Martin C. S. Wong

  2. Department of Public Health Strategy Research, Institute of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

    Ayan Mao, Pei Dong & Wuqi Qiu

Authors
  1. Hanyue Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayan Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiaye Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin C. S. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pei Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wuqi Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Hanyue Ding, Ayan Mao, and Martin CS Wong conceived and designed this study. Hanyue Ding and Jiaye Lin analysed data and wrote the manuscript. Ayan Mao and Pei Dong collected the data. Ayan Mao and Wuqi Qiu were coordinators of this study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wuqi Qiu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Ms. Dong received grants from Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2017-12 M-1-006).

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics and Confidentiality Committee of the National Cancer Centre of China (Reference number: CH-PRE-002) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Furthermore, informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ding, H., Mao, A., Lin, J. et al. Using a Chinese time trade-off approach to explore the health utility level and quality of life of cancer patients in urban China: a multicentre cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer 29, 2215–2223 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05729-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05729-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation