Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Utility Scores for Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Mapping to EQ-5D
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Utility Scores for Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Mapping to EQ-5D
Do you wish to request the book?
Utility Scores for Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Mapping to EQ-5D
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Utility Scores for Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Mapping to EQ-5D
2024
Overview
Background: Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are the most effective breast and ovarian cancer preventive interventions. EQ-5D is the recommended tool to assess the quality of life and determine health-related utility scores (HRUSs), yet there are no published EQ-5D HRUSs after these procedures. These are essential for clinicians counselling patients and for health-economic evaluations. Methods: We used aggregate data from our published systematic review and converted SF-36/SF-12 summary scores to EQ-5D HRUSs using a published mapping algorithm. Study control arm or age-matched country-specific reference values provided comparison. Random-effects meta-analysis provided adjusted disutilities and utility scores. Subgroup analyses included long-term vs. short-term follow-up. Results: Four studies (209 patients) reported RRM outcomes using SF-36, and five studies (742 patients) reported RRSO outcomes using SF-12/SF-36. RRM is associated with a long-term (>2 years) disutility of −0.08 (95% CI −0.11, −0.04) (I2 31.4%) and a utility of 0.92 (95% CI 0.88, 0.95) (I2 31.4%). RRSO is associated with a long-term (>1 year) disutility of −0.03 (95% CI −0.05, 0.00) (I2 17.2%) and a utility of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94, 0.99) (I2 34.0%). Conclusions: We present the first HRUSs sourced from patients following RRM and RRSO. There is a need for high-quality prospective studies to characterise quality of life at different timepoints.
