IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i2d10.1007_s41669-023-00443-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health State Utilities Associated with False-Positive Cancer Screening Results

Author

Listed:
  • Louis S. Matza

    (Evidera)

  • Timothy A. Howell

    (Evidera)

  • Eric T. Fung

    (GRAIL, LLC., a subsidiary of Illumina Inc.)

  • Sam M. Janes

    (University College London)

  • Michael Seiden

    (GRAIL, LLC.)

  • Allan Hackshaw

    (University College London)

  • Lincoln Nadauld

    (Intermountain Healthcare)

  • Hayley Karn

    (Evidera)

  • Karen C. Chung

    (GRAIL, LLC., a subsidiary of Illumina Inc.)

Abstract

Introduction Early cancer detection can significantly improve patient outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Novel cancer screening approaches, including multi-cancer early detection tests, have been developed. Cost-utility analyses will be needed to examine their value, and these models require health state utilities. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disutility (i.e., decrease in health state utility) associated with false-positive cancer screening results. Methods In composite time trade-off interviews using a 1-year time horizon, UK general population participants valued 10 health state vignettes describing cancer screening with true-negative or false-positive results. Each false-positive vignette described a common diagnostic pathway following a false-positive result suggesting lung, colorectal, breast, or pancreatic cancer. Every pathway ended with a negative result (no cancer detected). The disutility of each false positive was calculated as the difference between the true-negative and each false-positive health state, and because of the 1-year time horizon, each disutility can be interpreted as a quality-adjusted life-year decrement associated with each type of false-positive experience. Results A total of 203 participants completed interviews (49.8% male; mean age = 42.0 years). The mean (SD) utility for the health state describing a true-negative result was 0.958 (0.065). Utilities for false-positive health states ranged from 0.847 (0.145) to 0.932 (0.059). Disutilities for false positives ranged from − 0.031 to − 0.111 (− 0.041 to − 0.111 for lung cancer; − 0.079 for colorectal cancer; − 0.031 to − 0.067 for breast cancer; − 0.048 to − 0.088 for pancreatic cancer). Conclusion All false-positive results were associated with a disutility. Greater disutility was associated with more invasive follow-up diagnostic procedures, longer duration of uncertainty regarding the eventual diagnosis, and perceived severity of the suspected cancer type. Utility values estimated in this study would be useful for economic modeling examining the value of cancer screening procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis S. Matza & Timothy A. Howell & Eric T. Fung & Sam M. Janes & Michael Seiden & Allan Hackshaw & Lincoln Nadauld & Hayley Karn & Karen C. Chung, 2024. "Health State Utilities Associated with False-Positive Cancer Screening Results," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 263-276, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00443-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00443-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00443-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00443-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00443-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.