Cancer population norms using a new value set for the SF-6Dv2 based on the preferences of patients with breast or colorectal cancer in Quebec.

BACKGROUND: Because health resources are limited, health programs should be compared to allow the most efficient ones to emerge. To that aim, health utility instruments have been developed to allow the calculation of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). However, generic instruments, which can be used by any individual regardless of their health profile, typically consider the preferences of the general population when developing their value set. Consequently, they are often criticized for lacking sensitivity in certain domains, such as cancer. In response, the latest version of the Short Form 6-Dimension (SF-6Dv2) has been adapted to suit the preferences of patients with breast or colorectal cancer in the Canadian province of Quebec. By extension, our study's aim was to determine cancer population norms of utility among patients with breast or colorectal cancer in Quebec using the SF-6Dv2. METHOD: To determine the cancer population norms, we exploited the data that were used in the development of a new value set for the SF-6Dv2. This value set was developed considering the preferences of patients with breast or colorectal cancer. Stratification by time of data collection (i.e., T1 and T2), sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, sex, body mass index, and self-reported health problems affecting quality of life), and clinical aspects (i.e., cancer site, histopathological classification, cancer stage at diagnosis, modality, and treatment characteristics) was performed. RESULTS: In 353 observations, patients were more likely to have negative utility scores at T1 than at T2. Males had higher mean utility scores than females considering type of cancer and comorbidities. Considering the SF-6Dv2's dimensions, more females than males reported having health issues, most which concerned physical functioning. Significant differences by sex surfaced for all dimensions except "Role Limitation" and "Mental health." Patients with multifocal cancer had the highest mean and median utility values in all cancer sites considered. CONCLUSION: Cancer population norms can serve as a baseline for interpreting the scores obtained by a given population in comparison to the situation of another group. In this way, our results can assist in comparing utility scores among cancer patients with different sociodemographic groups to other patients/populations groups. To our knowledge, our identified utility norms are the first for patients with breast or colorectal cancer from Quebec.

Is radiofrequency ablation of varicose veins a valuable option? A systematic review of the literature with a cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, new techniques for the treatment of varicose veins have emerged, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laser treatment. We performed a study to compare the safety, efficacy and outcomes of RFA compared to those of open surgery and laser ablation for the treatment of varicose veins. We also carried out a cost analysis of RFA compared to open surgery to assess whether RFA could help free up operating room time by being performed in an outpatient context. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (publication date May 2010-September 2013 for articles in English, January 1991-September 2013 for those in French). We used several checklists to measure the quality of the studies. We also collected data on costing. RESULTS: The literature search identified 924 publications, of which 38 were retained for analysis: 15 literature reviews, 1 good-practice guideline and 22 new primary studies. The overall level of evidence was low to moderate owing to the limited sample sizes, lack of information on patient characteristics and lack of standardization of the outcome measures. However, the results obtained are consistent from study to study. In the short and medium term, RFA is considered as effective as open surgery or laser treatment (moderate level of evidence) and presents fewer major and minor complications than open surgery (low level of evidence). Radiofrequency ablation can be performed on an outpatient basis. We calculated that RFA would be about $110-$220 more expensive per patient than open surgery. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency ablation is a valuable alternative to open surgery and would free up operating room time in a context of low accessibility.

CONTEXTE: Depuis les années 1990, de nouvelles techniques pour le traitement des varices ont émergé, y compris l'ablation par radiofréquence (ARF) et le traitement au laser. Nous avons procédé à une étude afin de comparer l'innocuité, l'efficacité et les résultats de l'ARF à ceux de la chirurgie ouverte et de l'ablation par laser pour le traitement des varices. Nous avons aussi procédé à une analyse des coûts de l'ARF comparativement à la chirurgie pour vérifier si, en étant effectuée en consultation externe, l'ARF permet de libérer du temps de bloc opératoire. MÉTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique de la documentation (articles publiés entre mai 2010 et septembre 2013 en langue anglaise, et entre janvier 1991 et septembre 2013 en langue française). Nous avons utilisé plusieurs séries de critères pour mesurer la qualité des études. Nous avons aussi recueilli des données sur l'estimation des coûts. RÉSULTATS: La recherche documentaire a permis de recenser 924 publications, dont 38 ont été retenues pour analyse : 15 examens documentaires, 1 directive de pratique optimale et 22 études principales. Le niveau de preuve global a été jugé de faible à modéré en raison de la taille limitée des échantillons, du manque d'information sur les caractéristiques des patients et de l'absence de normalisation des mesures paramétriques. Toutefois, les résultats obtenus concordent d'une étude à l'autre. À court et à moyen terme, l'ARF est considérée aussi efficace que la chirurgie ouverte ou que le traitement au laser (niveau de preuve modéré) et s'accompagne de moins de complications majeures et mineures que la chirurgie ouverte (faible niveau de preuve). L'ablation par radiofréquence peut être effectuée en consultation externe. Nous avons calculé que l'ARF couterait environ 110 à 220 $ de plus par patient comparativement à la chirurgie. CONCLUSION: L'ablation par radiofréquence est une solution de rechange valable à la chirurgie ouverte et pourrait libérer du temps de bloc opératoire dans un contexte d'accès restreint.