Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients' utilities and treatment preferences.
Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients' utilities and treatment preferences.
复制标题
DOI:
10.1038/sj.bjc.6600203
复制
发表时间:
2002-03-18
影响因子:
8.8
通讯作者:
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
To assess patients' utilities for health state outcomes after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer and to investigate the patients' treatment preferences for either procedure. The study group consisted of 48 patients who had undergone either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. In an interview they were presented with eight possible health states following oesophagectomy. Visual Analogue Scale and standard gamble techniques were used to measure utilities. Treatment preference for either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy was assessed. Highest scores were found for the patients' own current health state (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.77; standard gamble: 0.97). Lowest scores were elicited for the health state ‘irresectable tumour’ (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.13; standard gamble: 0.34). The Visual Analogue Scale method produced lower estimates (P<0.001) than the standard gamble method for all health states. Most patient characteristics and clinical factors did not correlate with the utilities. Ninety-five per cent of patients who underwent a transthoracic procedure and 52% of patients who underwent a transhiatal resection would prefer the transthoracic treatment. No significant associations between any patient characteristics or clinical characteristics and treatment preference were found. Utilities after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy were robust because they generally did not vary by patient or clinical characteristics. Overall, most patients preferred the transthoracic procedure. British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 851–857. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600203 www.bjcancer.com © 2002 Cancer Research UK
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
120.7
作者:
Weinstein, MC;Siegel, JE;Russell, LB
通讯作者:
Russell, LB
影响因子:
11.8
作者:
deHaes, JCJM;Stiggelbout, AM
通讯作者:
Stiggelbout, AM
影响因子:
3.6
作者:
BASS, EB;STEINBERG, EP;JOHNS, C
通讯作者:
JOHNS, C
影响因子:
3.6
作者:
STIGGELBOUT, AM;KIEBERT, GM;DEHAES, JCJM
通讯作者:
DEHAES, JCJM
影响因子:
4.2
作者:
Brown, MM;Brown, GC;Shah, G
通讯作者:
Shah, G