Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2017; 78(04): 315-323
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598197
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Preferences and Utilities for Health States after Treatment of Olfactory Groove Meningioma: Endoscopic versus Open

Christopher M. Yao
1   Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Alyssa Kahane
2   Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
,
Eric Monteiro
1   Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
2   Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
,
Fred Gentili
3   Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
4   Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
,
Gelareh Zadeh
3   Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
4   Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
,
John R. de Almeida
1   Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
2   Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

07 October 2016

09 December 2016

Publication Date:
17 February 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study is to report health utility scores for patients with olfactory groove meningiomas (OGM) treated with either the standard transcranial approach, or the expanded endonasal endoscopic approach.

Design The time trade-off technique was used to derive health utility scores.

Setting Healthy individuals without skull base tumors were surveyed.

Main Outcome Measures Participants reviewed and rated scenarios describing treatment (endoscopic, open, stereotactic radiation, watchful waiting), remission, recurrence, and complications associated with the management of OGMs.

Results There were 51 participants. The endoscopic approach was associated with higher utility scores compared with an open craniotomy approach (0.88 vs. 0.74; p < 0.001) and watchful waiting (0.88 vs.0.74; p = 0.002). If recurrence occurred, revision endoscopic resection continued to have a higher utility score compared with revision open craniotomy (0.68; p = 0.008). On multivariate analysis, older individuals were more likely to opt for watchful waiting (p = 0.001), whereas participants from higher income brackets were more likely to rate stereotactic radiosurgery with higher utility scores (p = 0.017).

Conclusion The endoscopic approach was associated with higher utility scores than craniotomy for primary and revision cases. The present utilities can be used for future cost-utility analyses.

Keywords

health utility scores - time trade-off - olfactory groove meningioma - expanded endonasal approach - quality of life

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Castelnuovo P, Lepera D, Turri-Zanoni M. , et al. Quality of life following endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior skull base cancers. J Neurosurg 2013; 119 (06) 1401-1409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cavel O, Abergel A, Margalit N, Fliss DM, Gil Z. Quality of life following endoscopic resection of skull base tumors. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2012; 73 (02) 112-116
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 de Almeida JR, Snyderman CH, Gardner PA, Carrau RL, Vescan AD. Nasal morbidity following endoscopic skull base surgery: a prospective cohort study. Head Neck 2011; 33 (04) 547-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 de Almeida JR, Carvalho F, Vaz Guimaraes Filho F. , et al. Comparison of endoscopic endonasal and bifrontal craniotomy approaches for olfactory groove meningiomas: a matched pair analysis of outcomes and frontal lobe changes on MRI. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22 (11) 1733-1741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Derousseau T, Manjunath L, Harrow B, Zhang S, Batra PS. Long-term changes in quality of life after endoscopic resection of sinonasal and skull-base tumors. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2015; 5 (12) 1129-1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Harrow BR, Batra PS. Sinonasal quality of life outcomes after minimally invasive resection of sinonasal and skull-base tumors. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013; 3 (12) 1013-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Henzel M, Fokas E, Sitter H, Wittig A, Engenhart-Cabillic R. Quality of life after sterotactic radiotherapy for meningioma: a prospective non-randomized study. J Neurooncol 2013; 113(1): 135-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kirkman MA, Borg A, Al-Mousa A, Haliasos N, Choi D. Quality-of-life after anterior skull base surgery: a systematic review. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2014; 75 (02) 73-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Palme CE, Irish JC, Gullane PJ, Katz MR, Devins GM, Bachar G. Quality of life analysis in patients with anterior skull base neoplasms. Head Neck 2009; 31 (10) 1326-1334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pant H, Bhatki AM, Snyderman CH. , et al. Quality of life following endonasal skull base surgery. Skull Base 2010; 20 (01) 35-40
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 de Almeida JR, Carvalho F, Filho FVG, Kiehl TR, Koutourousiou M. , et al. Comparison of endoscopic endonasal and bifrontal craniotomy approaches for olfactory groove meningiomas: a matched pair analysis of outcomes and frontal lobe changes on MRI. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22; (11) 1733-1741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gil Z, Abergel A, Spektor S, Shabtai E, Khafif A, Fliss DM. Development of a cancer-specific anterior skull base quality-of-life questionnaire. J Neurosurg 2004; 100 (05) 813-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 de Almeida JR, Vescan AD, Gullane PJ. , et al. Development of a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for anterior and central skull base pathology--the skull base inventory. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (09) 1933-1942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 de Almeida JR, Witterick IJ, Gullane PJ. , et al. Quality of life instruments for skull base pathology: systematic review and methodological appraisal. Head Neck 2013; 35(9): 1121-1231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Deckard NA, Harrow BR, Barnett SL, Batra PS. Comparative analysis of quality-of-life metrics after endoscopic surgery for sinonasal neoplasms. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015; 29 (02) 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW. , et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. , eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996: 82-134
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable?--A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ 2005; 14 (01) 39-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15 (02) 209-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5 (02) 141-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JC. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving?. Med Decis Making 1997; 17 (04) 402-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fukuda K, Saeki N, Mine S. , et al. Evaluation of outcome and QOL in patients with craniofacial resection for malignant tumors involving the anterior skull base. Neurol Res 2000; 22 (06) 545-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gil Z, Abergel A, Spektor S. , et al. Quality of life following surgery for anterior skull base tumors. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129 (12) 1303-1309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Abergel A, Cavel O, Margalit N, Fliss DM, Gil Z. Comparison of quality of life after transnasal endoscopic vs open skull base tumor resection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 138 (02) 142-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gande A, Kano H, Bowden G. , et al. Gamma Knife radiosurgery of olfactory groove meningiomas provides a method to preserve subjective olfactory function. J Neurooncol 2014; 116 (03) 577-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ramaekers BL, Joore MA, Grutters JP. , et al. The impact of late treatment-toxicity on generic health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy. Oral Oncol 2011; 47 (08) 768-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Abergel A, Fliss DM, Margalit N, Gil Z. A prospective evaluation of short-term health-related quality of life in patients undergoing anterior skull base surgery. Skull Base 2010; 20 (01) 27-33
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chen AM, Vazquez E, Michaud AL, Farwell DG, Purdy JA. Functional and quality-of-life outcomes after reirradiation for head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (08) 1807-1812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gil Z, Fliss DM. Quality of life in patients with skull base tumors: current status and future challenges. Skull Base 2010; 20 (01) 11-18
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mehnert A, Koch U, Sundermann C, Dinkel A. Predictors of fear of recurrence in patients one year after cancer rehabilitation: a prospective study. Acta Oncol 2013; 52 (06) 1102-1109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Crist JV, Grunfeld EA. Factors reported to influence fear of recurrence in cancer patients: a systematic review. Psychooncology 2013; 22 (05) 978-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Savard J, Ivers H. The evolution of fear of cancer recurrence during the cancer care trajectory and its relationship with cancer characteristics. J Psychosom Res 2013; 74 (04) 354-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001; 32 (06) 1425-1429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Kistler J, Brown H. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85 (03) 327-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Crewe JM, Morlet N, Morgan WH. , et al. Quality of life of the most severely vision-impaired. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2011; 39 (04) 336-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kang HJ, Kang E, Jo MW, Park EJ, Yoon S, Lee EK. The utility score of epilepsy with partial seizure measured by TTO, VAS, and EQ-5D in the general Korean population. Epilepsy Res 2014; 108 (05) 963-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Legood R, Coen PG, Knox K. , et al. Health related quality of life in survivors of pneumococcal meningitis. Acta Paediatr 2009; 98 (03) 543-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar