EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Preferences and utilities for health states after treatment for oropharyngeal cancer: transoral robotic surgery versus definitive (chemo)radiotherapy


Head & Neck 36(7): 923-933
Preferences and utilities for health states after treatment for oropharyngeal cancer: transoral robotic surgery versus definitive (chemo)radiotherapy
Treatment of oropharyngeal cancer with transoral robotic surgery (TORS) or definitive (chemo)radiotherapy impacts quality of life. Utility scores are needed for quality of life and economic comparisons. Fifty healthy subjects and 9 experts reviewed scenarios describing treatment (TORS alone or with adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy [CRT], definitive radiotherapy, and CRT), complications, remission, and recurrences. Utilities were assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) techniques. Treatments were compared using paired comparisons and demographic variability was assessed. TORS had higher SG utilities than radiotherapy (p = .001) and CRT (p < .001) and was preferred in paired comparisons (p < .001 for both) for healthy subjects. Utilities did not vary by demographic group and correlated between experts and subjects (VAS r = 0.95; p < .001; SG r = 0.97; p < .001). TORS has higher utility scores than CRT. Utilities can be used for cost-utility analyses.


Accession: 055116472

PMID: 23595774

DOI: 10.1002/hed.23340



Related references

Cost-effectiveness of transoral robotic surgery versus (chemo)radiotherapy for early T classification oropharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-utility analysis. Head & Neck 38(4): 589-600, 2014

Oncologic outcomes and patient-reported quality of life in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with definitive transoral robotic surgery versus definitive chemoradiation. Oral Oncology 61(): 41-46, 2016

Oncological and survival outcomes following transoral robotic surgery versus transoral laser microsurgery for the treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review protocol. Jbi Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports 14(8): 90-102, 2016

Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal and tongue cancer in the United States. Laryngoscope 125(1): 140-145, 2015

The impact of transoral robotic surgery on the overall treatment of oropharyngeal cancer patients. Laryngoscope 125 Suppl 10(): S1-S15, 2016

Transoral robotic surgery and transoral laser microsurgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer. Journal of Robotic Surgery 7(4): 377-383, 2013

Functional outcomes, feasibility, and safety of resection of transoral robotic surgery: single-institution series of 35 consecutive cases of transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head & Neck 37(11): 1618-1624, 2016

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and transoral surgery as a definitive treatment for oropharyngeal cancer: A feasible novel approach. Head & Neck 38(12): 1837-1846, 2016

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Chemoradiation Therapy Versus Transoral Robotic Surgery for Human Papillomavirus-Associated, Clinical N2 Oropharyngeal Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 94(3): 512-522, 2016

Oropharyngeal cancer biology and treatment: insights from messenger RNA sequence analysis and transoral robotic surgery. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 87(11): 1132; Author Reply 1132-3, 2013