Variability in Health Utility Scores in Pancreatic Cancer: Findings From a Targeted Literature Review
Author(s)
Jignasa Sathwara, PhD, M.Pharm, VATSAL CHHAYA, Msc, KAPIL KHAMBHOLJA, PhD.
Catalyst Clinical Research, Baroda, India.
Catalyst Clinical Research, Baroda, India.
OBJECTIVES: Most existing studies on health utility scores (HUS) in pancreatic cancer (PC) focus on metastatic disease, with limited data across all cancer stages. This review aims to address this gap by systematically identifying and evaluating published utility estimates for PC patients.
METHODS: We conducted a targeted literature review (2020-2025) using PubMed and the ISPOR Presentations Database to identify English-language studies on HUS in PC. The ISPOR database was prioritized as the only known source for the latest updates on quality-of-life (QOL) and health utility research. Studies reporting direct or mapped utility values using validated instruments (e.g., EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI) were included. Data were extracted on study design, population, disease stage, utility measures, and reported values.
RESULTS: A total of 621 records were identified (608 from PubMed, 13 from ISPOR); 18 PubMed-indexed studies on HUS in PC met inclusion criteria: 9 observational (50.0%), 5 economic models (27.8%), and 4 systematic reviews (22.2%). Studies were evenly distributed across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific (6 each, 33.3%). Reported utility values ranged from 0.25 to 0.95. Higher values (0.75-0.95) were reported in localized disease post-resection, particularly following minimally invasive or robotic procedures. Lower values (0.25-0.60) were associated with advanced/metastatic disease. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, stable disease yielded higher utilities (0.62-0.70) than progressive disease (0.45-0.55). Instruments included EQ-5D (61.1%), EORTC QLQ-C30 (33.3%), PAN26 (16.7%), and model-based estimates (27.8%). Only 6 studies (33.3%) used validated, preference-based, patient-reported instruments.
CONCLUSIONS: Health utility data in PC are heterogeneous, with variability across disease stages and treatments, underscoring evidence gaps. Standardized, preference-based instruments are warranted to improve the consistency and comparability of health utility data in PC across studies and settings.
METHODS: We conducted a targeted literature review (2020-2025) using PubMed and the ISPOR Presentations Database to identify English-language studies on HUS in PC. The ISPOR database was prioritized as the only known source for the latest updates on quality-of-life (QOL) and health utility research. Studies reporting direct or mapped utility values using validated instruments (e.g., EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI) were included. Data were extracted on study design, population, disease stage, utility measures, and reported values.
RESULTS: A total of 621 records were identified (608 from PubMed, 13 from ISPOR); 18 PubMed-indexed studies on HUS in PC met inclusion criteria: 9 observational (50.0%), 5 economic models (27.8%), and 4 systematic reviews (22.2%). Studies were evenly distributed across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific (6 each, 33.3%). Reported utility values ranged from 0.25 to 0.95. Higher values (0.75-0.95) were reported in localized disease post-resection, particularly following minimally invasive or robotic procedures. Lower values (0.25-0.60) were associated with advanced/metastatic disease. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, stable disease yielded higher utilities (0.62-0.70) than progressive disease (0.45-0.55). Instruments included EQ-5D (61.1%), EORTC QLQ-C30 (33.3%), PAN26 (16.7%), and model-based estimates (27.8%). Only 6 studies (33.3%) used validated, preference-based, patient-reported instruments.
CONCLUSIONS: Health utility data in PC are heterogeneous, with variability across disease stages and treatments, underscoring evidence gaps. Standardized, preference-based instruments are warranted to improve the consistency and comparability of health utility data in PC across studies and settings.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
PCR264
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Patient-Centered Research, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Health State Utilities, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Gastrointestinal Disorders, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology