Health-state utility of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in Vietnam: A multicenter cross-sectional study

Tram Nguyen Nguyet Luu; Dai Xuan Dinh; Thinh Xuan Tran; Thang Binh Tran; Huong Thanh Tran; Kiet Huy Tuan Pham; Huong Thi Thanh Nguyen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303011

Abstract

Background

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer may have poor prognoses and short overall and disease-free survival. Most previous studies focused on assessing the quality of life and health-state utility of the general population of breast cancer patients. The number of studies for HER2-positive breast cancer patients is negligible. This study investigated the health-state utility and its associated factors among Vietnamese patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Methods

We conducted face-to-face interviews with 301 HER2-positive breast cancer patients to collect data. Their health-state utility was measured via the EQ-5D-5L instrument. The Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to compare the differences in utility scores between two groups and among three groups or more, respectively. Factors associated with patients’ heath-state utility were identified via Tobit regression models.

Results

Pain/discomfort (56.1%) and anxiety/depression (39.5%) were the two issues that patients suffered from the most, especially among metastatic breast cancer patients. The severity of distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) in patients was relatively mild. Of 301 patients, their average utility score was 0.86±0.17 (range: 0.03–1.00), and the average EQ-visual analogue scale (VAS) score was 69.12±12.60 (range: 30–100). These figures were 0.79±0.21 and 65.20±13.20 for 102 metastatic breast cancer patients, significantly lower than those of 199 non-metastatic cancer patients (0.89±0.13 and 71.13±11.78) (p<0.001), respectively. Lower health-state utility scores were significantly associated with older age (p = 0.002), lower education level (p = 0.006), lower monthly income (p = 0.036), metastatic cancer (p = 0.001), lower EQ-VAS score (p<0.001), and more severe level of distress (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings showed a significant decrement in utility scores among metastatic breast cancer patients. Patients’ health-state utility differed by their demographic characteristics (age, education level, and income) and clinical characteristics (stage of cancer and distress). Their utility scores may support further cost-effectiveness analysis in Vietnam.

Citation: Luu TNN, Dinh DX, Tran TX, Tran TB, Tran HT, Pham KHT, et al. (2024) Health-state utility of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in Vietnam: A multicenter cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0303011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011

Editor: Ravishankar Jayadevappa, University of Pennsylvania, UNITED STATES

Received: December 15, 2023; Accepted: April 17, 2024; Published: May 14, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Luu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Introduction

Globally, it is estimated that there were approximately 2.3 million new cases and 670 thousand deaths by reason of breast cancer in 2022 [1]. This disease was the second most commonly diagnosed cancer (both sexes, all ages: 11.5% of all cancer cases; women: 23.8%) and ranked fourth in the leading causes of cancer deaths [2]. The incidence and mortality rates for this breast disease were 46.8 and 12.7 per 100,000, respectively [2]. In Vietnam, about 24,563 new cases and 10,008 deaths involving breast cancer were reported in 2022. In this country, this breast disease ranked first in the new cancer cases and fourth in the number of cancer deaths (incidence rate: 38.0 per 100,000; mortality rate: 14.7 per 100,000) [2].

The human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) receptor, which is a transmembrane glycoprotein with tyrosine kinase activity, plays a role in controlling epithelial cell proliferation and differentiation [3]. The HER2 gene is amplified from two-fold to more than 20-fold among roughly 15–20% of breast cancer patients. The amplification of this gene gives rise to protein expression and the increasing number of receptors at the cell surface, thereby contributing to excessive cellular division and tumor formation [4, 5]. HER2-positive breast cancer is more likely to spread from the breast to other areas of the body (metastasis) and recur than the HER2-negative type of breast cancer. Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer may have poorer prognoses and shorter overall and disease-free survival [6, 7]. Luckily, the discovery of the HER2 gene and the HER2-targeted drugs ushered in a new chapter for patients with both early-stage and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. These drugs are recommended for use and feature in numerous countries’ standard treatment regimens. Using HER2-targeted drugs (such as trastuzumab, pertuzumab, lapatinib, and neratinib) can make a contribution to improving the treatment effectiveness, reducing the risks of recurrence and mortality, and prolonging survival for HER2-positive breast cancer patients [8–10].

Besides the targets mentioned above, health-related quality of life is also a vital outcome employed to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of cancer treatment therapies. There are a plethora of previous studies conducted to assess the quality of life and health-state utility of breast cancer patients, including several studies in Vietnam [11–13]. However, most of them focused on the general population of breast cancer patients receiving various types of treatment therapies (such as surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy). The number of studies for HER2-positive breast cancer patients (especially patients undergoing systemic treatment) is negligible [14, 15]. In addition, the treatment costs of HER2-targeted drugs are exorbitant. As a result, these medications are of great interest to researchers and policymakers. Measuring the health-related quality of life and health-state utility of HER2-positive breast cancer patients is essential for the health technology assessment of anti-HER2 agents. These data can be used to compute significant indicators and parameters, thereby providing reliable evidence supporting the decision-making related to health insurance coverage policies. This research was conducted to measure the health-state utility and its associated factors among Vietnamese patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

This research was approved by the ethics committee of the Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Vietnam (reference number: H2022/495, dated 20th September 2022). The authors also received permission from the board of directors of two hospitals where data were collected. The participants (patients with HER2-positive breast cancer) gave written informed consent before participating in this research. The authors had access to medical records and information that could identify individual participants during the data collection. However, patients’ personal information will be kept confidential. The time for patient recruitment and access to medical records was from November 2022 to April 2023.

Study design and setting

This cross-sectional study was conducted in two hospitals to collect data on patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. The first hospital was the Vietnam National Cancer Hospital in northern Vietnam. This is Vietnam’s biggest specialized oncology hospital, with approximately 2,000 hospital beds. The second health facility was the Oncology Center of Hue Central Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital with about 4,500 hospital beds in the central region of Vietnam. This center has about 500 hospital beds and is one of Vietnam’s leading cancer treatment facilities.

Participants and the sample size

The study population was patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, including early (I, II, and III) and late stages (IV). Two standard tests employed to identify whether or not breast cancer is HER2-positive were the ImmunoHistoChemistry (IHC) test and (2) the Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) test. The latter is more accurate but expensive and takes longer to have results than the former. Participants’ inclusion criteria included (1) female patients aged 18 or older, (2) being diagnosed with HER2-positive breast cancer (having an IHC result of 3+ or an IHC result of 2+ along with a FISH test score of positive), (3) receiving systemic therapy for adjuvant or metastatic treatment (including chemotherapy only, chemotherapy in combination with HER2-targeted therapy, or HER2-targeted therapy with/without hormone therapy), and (4) having at least three cycles of treatment before the time of interviewing. Patients were excluded if they did not concur to participate in this research, did not give written informed consent, and could not finish the questionnaire by virtue of feeling haggard or having psychological issues.

The sample size was computed via the following formula: n = Z²_(1-α/2).σ²/(ε².μ²). With Z_(1-α/2) = 1.96 (α = 0.05), σ (standard deviation) = 0.22 [13], ε (margin of error) = 5%, and μ = 0.74 [13], the minimum sample size (n) was 136 patients. In November 2022, after an initial screening, there were approximately 446 eligible inpatients currently undergoing systemic treatment in two selected hospitals. We strived to approach nearly all of them. However, only 301 patients concurred to participate in this research (response rate: 67.5%). Data collectors (the authors) introduced the study objectives and procedures to patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Then, they were invited to participate in this research. Those agreeing to take part in this research gave us their written informed consent and then got a face-to-face interview with data collectors in two selected hospitals. After that, data collectors collected additional data from inpatients’ medical records.

The questionnaire and measurements

Patient’s demographic characteristics were collected via a direct interview (including year of birth, residence, education level, job/occupation, marital status, whether or not giving birth, and patient’s monthly income). Patient’s clinical characteristics and their treatment were gathered from medical records, including the time since the first diagnosis of breast cancer, the stage of cancer (metastatic or non-metastatic), type of metastasis (relapsed or de novo), site of metastasis, comorbidity, menopausal status, hormone receptor (positive or negative), and treatment regimens. In this study, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-10) was utilized to measure patients’ level of distress. The validity and reliability of DASS-10 was demonstrated in a previous study [16]. We received the DASS-10 developers’ permission to translate and use this scale. The linguistic validation of the DASS-10 consisted of three steps: forward translation, backward translation, and testing. This questionnaire consists of ten questions divided into two subscales (including depression and anxiety-stress). For each question, patients had four answering options, including “never”, “sometimes”, “often”, and “almost always”. The total score of a patient can range from 0 to 30 (reflecting the overall distress: (1) mild/subclinical: 6 or less, (2) moderate: 7–12, and (3) severe: 13 or higher) [17].

The primary outcome was patients’ health-state utility measured via the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire—one of the multi-attribute utility instruments recommended for use in pharmacoeconomic guidelines in many countries [18]. This instrument comprises two parts: (1) the EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) and (2) the EQ-5D descriptive system. The former is a vertical visual analog scale ranging from 0 (The worst health a patient can imagine) to 100 (The best health a patient can imagine). This scale reflects the patient’s health based on their own judgment (self-rated health). The latter includes five dimensions: (1) mobility, (2) self-care, (3) usual activities, (4) pain/discomfort, and (5) anxiety/depression. One dimension consists of five levels of problems: (1) no, (2) slight, (3) moderate, (4) severe, and (5) extreme/unable. Patients were also categorized into two groups for each dimension: no problems if they chose the “no” option and having problems if they chose one of the four remaining options. The Vietnamese version of EQ-5D-5L and the value set for the general population in Vietnam (scoring) are available [19, 20]. The use of this questionnaire was approved by the EuroQoL Research Foundation (request registration number 50956, dated 25 Jul 2022).

Data analysis

After being collected, data were entered into an Excel file and analyzed with SPSS version 26 and STATA version 15. Mean (standard deviation) or median (25^th-75^th) was used to report numeric variables (such as patient’s age), while categorical variables (such as occupation) were described via numbers and percentages. The relationship between two categorical variables was identified using a Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test. Regarding numeric variables, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check the normal distribution of data. By reason of the non-normal distribution, the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum tests were employed to compare the differences in utility scores between two groups and among three groups or more, respectively. In addition, factors associated with patients’ health-state utility were identified using Tobit regression models that describe the relationship between a truncated or censored continuous variable (a dependent variable) and independent variables, in line with several previous studies [13, 21]. The multivariate model only included independent variables having p-values<0.05 in univariate analyses. A p-value<0.05 was regarded as statistical significance.

Results

The general characteristics of participants

Of 301 participants, there were 199 non-metastatic breast cancer patients (66.1%) and 102 metastatic breast cancer patients (33.9%). On average, patients’ age was 51.1±9.5 years old. Roughly 88.0% of patients aged 40 or older. About two-thirds came from rural areas (61.5%) and had an education level of secondary school, high school, or college (71.1%). Most patients got married (95.3%) and gave birth (99.0%). Common occupations were farmers (28.9%), employees/business people (25.2%), and freelancers (24.9%). A quarter had a monthly income of less than two million Vietnam dongs (24.9%), while this figure of nearly two-fifths was higher than three million Vietnam dongs (57.5%). Patients’ average income per month was approximately 5.0±4.7 million Vietnam dongs. Between the two patient groups (non-metastatic and metastatic), there were significant differences in education level (p = 0.021), occupation (p<0.001), giving birth (p = 0.038), and patient’s income per month (p = 0.009) (Table 1).

Download:

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants (n = 301 patients).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011.t001

Of 102 metastatic breast cancer patients, nearly a third had de novo metastatic cancer. More than three-quarters had visceral and/or central nervous system metastasis. On average, the time since the first diagnosis of breast cancer among all 301 patients was 20.6±32.3 months (non-metastatic patients: 7.7±4.5 months and metastatic patients: 45.8±45.6 months). Among all patients, 31.2% had at least one comorbidity, and 57.8% were menopausal women. The percentage of patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (49.2%) was relatively equal to that of patients with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer (50.8%). Regarding the treatment regimens, nearly half of non-metastatic breast cancer patients (47.2%) were given HER2-targeted therapy only or in combination with hormone therapy. Meanwhile, a majority of metastatic breast cancer patients received chemotherapy only (53.9%) or in combination with HER2-target therapy (32.4%). Between the two patient groups (non-metastatic and metastatic), there were significant differences in the time since the first diagnosis (p<0.001), menopausal status (p = 0.048), hormone receptor (p = 0.001), and received treatment regimens (p<0.001) (Table 2).

Download:

Table 2. Clinical characteristics of participants (n = 301 patients).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011.t002

Patients’ health profile across five health dimensions of EQ 5D-5L and DASS-10

Among all 301 patients, pain/discomfort (56.1%) and anxiety/depression (39.5%) were the two issues that many patients suffered from most. In comparison with the non-metastatic group, the percentages of patients with metastatic breast cancer having problems involving usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression were significantly higher (p = 0.012, p<0.001, and p<0.001, respectively). Regarding these three dimensions, the number of metastatic breast cancer patients having severe or extreme problems was also higher than that of the non-metastatic patient group (usual activities: 5.9% and 0.0%; pain/discomfort: 9.8% and 4.0%; and anxiety/depression: 7.9% and 4.0%, respectively). Among all 301 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, their average utility score was 0.86±0.17 (range: 0.03–1.00), and the average EQ-VAS score was 69.12±12.60 (range: 30–100). These scores of 102 metastatic cancer patients (0.79±0.21 and 65.20±13.20) were significantly lower than those of 199 non-metastatic cancer patients (0.89±0.13 and 71.13±11.78) (p<0.001 and p<0.001), respectively. In addition, the average DASS-10 score of the former was slightly higher than that of the latter, but this difference was insignificant (p = 0.245) (Table 3, Fig 1).

Download:

Fig 1. The proportion of patient responses by the extent of problems reported in each EQ-5D-5L domain among non-metastatic and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011.g001

Download:

Table 3. Patients’ health profile across five health dimensions of EQ 5D-5L and DASS-10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011.t003

Factors associated with the health-state utility of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

The average utility score of patients aged 60 or older was 0.80±0.19, significantly lower than that of other age groups (p<0.001). This figure for illiterate patients and those only graduating from a primary school (0.69±0.25) was also significantly lower than that of patients with higher education levels (p<0.001). With regard to patients’ occupations, the average utility score of employees and business people was the highest (0.93±0.10), while that of houseworkers was the lowest (0.76±0.18) (p<0.001). Among income groups, patients with more than three million Vietnam dongs per month had the highest average utility score (0.90±0.11, p<0.001). Regarding clinical characteristics, lower average utility scores were witnessed among patients with a longer time since the first diagnosis of breast cancer (p = 0.002), menopausal women (p = 0.001), and patients receiving chemotherapy in combination with HER2-targeted therapy (p = 0.007) (Table 4).

Download:

Table 4. Breast cancer patients’ average utility scores by their demographic and clinical characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011.t004

As per the results of the Tobit regression model, the health-state utility of patients with HER-2 positive breast cancer was significantly associated with their age, education level, monthly income, stage of cancer (non-metastatic or metastatic), EQ-VAS score, and DASS-10 score. The higher the patient’s age and the DASS-10 score, the lower the utility scores (negative correlations). For each one-unit increase in patient’s age (one year) and DASS-10 score (one score), their utility scores decreased by 0.005 (p = 0.002) and 0.007 (p<0.001), respectively. In contrast, there was a positive correlation between the EQ-VAS scores and health-state utility (beta = 0.007, p<0.001). Patients’ utility scores also increased by 0.008 for each one-unit monthly income increase (one million Vietnam dongs) (p = 0.036). In addition, higher utility scores were found among patients with an education level of university or higher (p = 0.006) and non-metastatic breast cancer patients (p = 0.001) (Table 5).

Download:

Table 5. Factors associated with the health-state utility of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (Tobit regression analyses).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011.t005

Discussion

This study was conducted to measure HER2-positive breast cancer patients’ health-state utility and associated factors in Vietnam using the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Our findings showed that the average utility score of 301 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer was 0.86±0.17. This figure among non-metastatic breast cancer patients (0.89±0.13) was significantly higher than that of the metastatic cancer patient group (0.79±0.21). The utility scores were positively correlated with patients’ monthly income and EQ-VAS score but negatively correlated with their age and level of distress (DASS-10 score). In addition, education level was another factor associated with the health-state utility of these patients.

Patients’ health profile across five health dimensions of EQ 5D-5L and DASS-10

Pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression were two common health issues that many Vietnamese patients with HER2-positive breast cancer suffered from (56.1% and 39.5%, respectively). The number of patients with severe or extreme problems with these two dimensions was also the highest. By contrast, not many patients had problems involving self-care (12.0%). These results were in line with the findings of numerous previous studies in Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Korea, and Singapore [13, 14, 22–26]. However, anxiety/depression was the most common health issue among breast cancer patients in India and Indonesia, followed by pain/discomfort [27, 28]. In the United Kingdom, usual activities and pain/discomfort were two common issues of HER2-positive breast cancer patients [15]. The differences in the findings of studies can be explained by the differences in studying time, location, stage of cancer, and the sample. Besides, in spite of the high number of Vietnamese breast cancer patients having problems with anxiety/depression, the severity of this health dimension was relatively mild (according to the DASS-10 scores). Nonetheless, both physical and mental health should be paid attention to when taking care of breast cancer patients.

For all five dimensions, the percentage of patients having problems in the metastatic group was higher than that in the non-metastatic group. However, the differences were only significant in three dimensions, including usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. It is perfectly understandable that the severity of these health dimensions among the former was greater than that of the latter. Two studies in Brazil and China reported similar results when patients with metastatic breast cancer suffered from more health problems than the non-metastatic group [14, 24]. However, in these two studies, the differences were statistically significant in all five dimensions. In the United Kingdom, the differences among patient groups were statistically significant in mobility, self-care, and usual activities. The other two dimensions (including pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression) did not find any significant differences [15]. The findings from a study in the United States also showed that the spiritual and emotional quality of life outcomes among advanced breast cancer women were not significantly different as per metastatic status [29]. The differences in location, patient selection criteria, year of survey, patient’s income, and healthcare systems may be possible rationales behind the differences in the findings among countries.

Patients’ EQ-VAS scores

The average EQ-VAS score of Vietnamese patients with HER2-positive breast cancer was 69.12, in line with the result of a study in Ethiopia (69.9) [26]. Our result was slightly higher than the result of a previous study in Vietnam (64.9) [13] but far lower than the result of a study among Chinese patients (80.0) [23]. This difference may spring from the differences between the sample, location, studying time, and treatment therapies. Regarding the stages of cancer, in our research, there was a significant difference in the EQ-VAS scores between patients with metastatic breast cancer (65.20) and those with non-metastatic breast cancer (71.13). Our findings were similar to the results of a study in the United Kingdom (patients receiving treatment for metastatic breast cancer: 65.82 and patients currently undergoing treatment for early breast cancer: 72.74) [15]. In comparison with non-metastatic breast cancer patients, the higher EQ-VAS scores of patients with metastatic breast cancer were also reported in Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia [14, 23, 24, 27, 28].

Health-state utility and associated factors

Of all 301 Vietnamese patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, their average utility score was 0.86, consistent with the results of studies in China, Ethiopia, and India [23, 26, 27, 30] but higher than the findings of a study in Singapore [25]. In comparison with the utility score of breast cancer patients from a previous study in Vietnam in 2019, our result was higher (0.74 and 0.86, respectively) [13]. Used treatment therapies can be the rationale behind the difference between the two studies. In this study, we only recruited patients receiving systemic treatment. Meanwhile, in the study in 2019, breast cancer patients could receive various kinds of treatment therapies, such as lumpectomy, mastectomy, and breast reconstruction surgery.

The stage of cancer/metastatic status is a crucial factor affecting treatment targets and regimens for breast cancer patients. The average utility scores of metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancer patients in Vietnam were 0.79 and 0.89, higher than those of HER2-positive breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom (0.70 and 0.81), respectively [15]. For both metastatic and non-metastatic cancer groups, there were also differences in the utility scores of patients among countries (such as the Netherlands and Sweden [31], Korea [32], China [23, 33], Indonesia [28]), but the gaps were not huge. In addition, previous studies showed that the health-related quality of life and health-state utility of patients with metastatic breast cancer were significantly lower than those of patients with early-stage and non-metastatic breast cancer [34, 35]. As a result, it is necessary to have screening programs to detect and diagnose breast cancer at an early stage and have suitable healthcare programs prioritized for late-stage cancer patients.

In this study, three demographic characteristics of Vietnamese patients associated with their health-state utility were age, education level, and monthly income. In Asia, breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, having comorbidities, less social support, and more unmet needs had poorer health-related quality of life [34]. In low- and middle-income countries in Asia, breast cancer patients’ health-related quality of life was associated with their age, marital status, education level, income, stage of the tumor, method, treatment duration, and lifestyle [36]. Similar to our results, the poor health-related quality of life and health-state utility of breast cancer patients with old age, low education level, and low income per month were also found among patients in other countries, such as China, Korea, and India [13, 24, 27, 32, 37, 38]. However, in several studies in China and Japan, younger patients had lower health-related quality of life by reason of being under a lot of pressure and stress [39–41]. With regard to patients’ monthly income and education level, our findings were in line with the results of a systematic review: those with higher income and education levels had higher health-related quality of life [36]. Patients with low income and low education levels may be unable to afford the treatment costs and not comprehend the crucial role of treatment adherence, thereby lowering the treatment’s effectiveness and efficacy. For patients living on the breadline, health insurance can play an essential role in their treatment process. Sadly, in Vietnam, health insurance does not cover the treatment costs of nearly all HER2-targeted drugs, except for trastuzumab (with a reimbursement rate of 60%). To improve HER2-positive breast cancer patients’ health outcomes and health-related quality of life, the government, policymakers, and other relevant parties (especially in low- and middle-income countries) should have practical policies and solutions to support patients in their long-term treatment period.

Besides the four factors above, the health-state utility of HER2-positive breast cancer patients in Vietnam was also associated with their EQ-VAS score and level of distress (DASS-10 score). Among patients with metastatic breast cancer in Germany, their EQ-VAS scores were significantly associated with single EQ-5D-5L items and the total score [42]. Furthermore, breast cancer patients usually suffer from mental health and psychological issues [43–45]. Previous studies demonstrated that breast cancer patients suffering from depression, anxiety, and stress also had lower health-related quality of life [11, 46, 47]. These burdens highlighted the essential roles of physical and mental health care for breast cancer patients, especially for the metastatic cancer group. Improving patients’ physical and mental health is of paramount importance [48].

Strengths and limitations

This is the first study conducted in Vietnam to measure the health-state utility of 301 HER2-positive breast cancer patients in two health facilities. The reliability and validity of the instruments were demonstrated. Information about patients’ health profiles, the division of patients into metastatic and non-metastatic cancer groups to analyze data, and factors associated with their health-related quality of life can contribute to developing healthcare programs and supporting their treatment process. In addition, the utility scores computed from the EQ-5D-5L instrument for Vietnamese patients receiving systemic treatment can be used in the health technology assessment of HER2-target drugs, especially in case of the heterogeneity in the utility scores of breast cancer patients among countries around the world. Besides the strengths above, our research has several limitations. First, since patients with HER2-positive breast cancer only account for approximately 15–20% of breast cancer patients, our sample size was not high. Second, collecting data via patient interviews can bring several biases, such as recall bias. Furthermore, by virtue of being a cross-sectional study, our results only reflect patients’ information at a point in time, and the causal relationship between the health-state utility and independent factors cannot be determined.

Conclusions

Many patients with HER2-positive breast cancer had problems involving pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, especially among metastatic breast cancer patients. Patients’ utility scores were relatively high, and their health issues involving depression, anxiety, and stress were relatively mild. Factors associated with patients’ health-state utility included their age, education level, monthly income, metastatic status, EQ-VAS score, and level of distress. Both physical and mental health should be paid attention to when taking care of breast cancer patients. Our findings provide important information that can be used in the health technology assessment of HER2-directed therapy and make a contribution to supporting patients during their long treatment period.

Supporting information

S1 File. Data file (raw data).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303011.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Board of Directors of the Vietnam National Cancer Hospital and the Hue Central Hospital, doctors, nurses, and patients for their participation and support during the data collection process.

References

1. World Health Organization. Breast cancer. 2024 Mar 13 [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Data visualization tools for exploring the global cancer burden in 2022. 2024 Mar [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/en
3. Klapper LN, Glathe S, Vaisman N, Hynes NE, Andrews GC, Sela M, et al. The ErbB-2/HER2 oncoprotein of human carcinomas may function solely as a shared coreceptor for multiple stroma-derived growth factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(9):4995–5000. pmid:10220407
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Hicks DG, Kulkarni S. HER2+ breast cancer: review of biologic relevance and optimal use of diagnostic tools. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129(2):263–73. pmid:18208807
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Krishnamurti U, Silverman JF. HER2 in breast cancer: a review and update. Adv Anat Pathol. 2014;21(2):100–7. pmid:24508693
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Swain SM, Shastry M, Hamilton E. Targeting HER2-positive breast cancer: advances and future directions. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(2):101–126. pmid:36344672
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Loibl S, Gianni L. HER2-positive breast cancer. Lancet. 2017;389(10087):2415–2429. pmid:27939064
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Ahmed S, Sami A, Xiang J. HER2-directed therapy: current treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22(2):101–16. pmid:25634227
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Maximiano S, Magalhães P, Guerreiro MP, Morgado M. Trastuzumab in the Treatment of Breast Cancer. BioDrugs. 2016;30(2):75–86. pmid:26892619
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Yu Q, Zhu Z, Liu Y, Zhang J, Li K. Efficacy and Safety of HER2-Targeted Agents for Breast Cancer with HER2-Overexpression: A Network Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127404. pmid:25993646
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Tran TH, Trinh NL, Hoang Y, Nguyen TL, Vu TT. Health-Related Quality of Life Among Vietnamese Breast Cancer Women. Cancer Control. 2019;26(1):1073274819862787. pmid:31293170
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Tran TN, Pham NT, Phan Thi DQ, Nguyen HS. Quality of Life and Its Contributing Factors among Breast Cancer Patients after Intensive Treatment. Ann Cancer Res Ther. 2020;28(2):102–6.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Ngan TT, Mai VQ, Van Minh H, Donnelly M, O’Neill C. Health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients compared to cancer survivors and age-matched women in the general population in Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(3):777–787. pmid:34541610
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Monteiro MR, Nunes NCC, Crespo J, Abrahão ABK, Buscacio G, Lerner LCC, et al. Patient-centered Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Description of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC-QLQ-BR23 Measurements in Real-world Data and Their Association With Survival. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2022;34(9):608–616. pmid:35667940
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Verrill M, Wardley AM, Retzler J, Smith AB, Bottomley C, Ní Dhochartaigh S, et al. Health-related quality of life and work productivity in UK patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: a cross-sectional study evaluating the relationships between disease and treatment stage. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):353. pmid:33138835
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Kim Halford W, Frost ADJ. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10: A Brief Measure for Routine Psychotherapy Outcome and Progress Assessment. Behav Change. 2021;38(4):221–234.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. NovoPsych. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-10). [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://novopsych.com.au/assessments/depression/depression-anxiety-stress-scale-dass-10/
18. Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–1257. pmid:32514643
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L. 2023 Dec 13 [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Mai VQ, Sun S, Minh HV, Luo N, Giang KB, Lindholm L, et al. An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(7):1923–1933. pmid:32221805
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Tran BT, Pham NH, Nguyen TX, Choi KS, Sohn DK, Kim SY, et al. Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life Among Colorectal Cancer Patients Using the Vietnamese Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Dec 4;14:2427–2437. pmid:33304097
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee JW, Lee HJ, Kim JK. Validity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for breast cancer patients in Korea. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:203. pmid:26694964
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Yang Q, Yu X, Zhang W. Health variations among breast-cancer patients from different disease states: evidence from China. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1033. pmid:33176759
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Wang L, Shi JF, Zhu J, Huang HY, Bai YN, Liu GX, et al. Health-related quality of life and utility scores of patients with breast neoplasms in China: A multicenter cross-sectional survey. Breast. 2018;39:53–62. pmid:29597131
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Lee CF, Ng R, Luo N, Wong NS, Yap YS, Lo SK, et al. The English and Chinese versions of the five-level EuroQoL Group’s five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were valid and reliable and provided comparable scores in Asian breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(1):201–9. pmid:22669608
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Sibhat SG, Fenta TG, Sander B, Gebretekle GB. Health-related quality of life and its predictors among patients with breast cancer at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):165. pmid:31690327
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Wadasadawala T, Mohanty SK, Sen S, Khan PK, Pimple S, Mane JV, et al. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Using EQ-5D-5L: Value Set Derived for Indian Breast Cancer Cohort. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2023;24(4):1199–1207. pmid:37116141
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Rukminingsih F, Andayani T, Rahmawati F, Widayati K. Health-related quality of life in early breast cancer patients with hormone responsive. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2018;10:47.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Wyatt G, Sikorskii A, Tamkus D, You M. Quality of life among advanced breast cancer patients with and without distant metastasis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22(2):272–80. pmid:23252474
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Liu L, Li S, Wang M, Chen G. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L health state utilities using four country-specific tariffs on a breast cancer patient sample in mainland China. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1049–1056. pmid:28706443
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Frederix GW, Quadri N, Hövels AM, van de Wetering FT, Tamminga H, Schellens JH, et al. Utility and work productivity data for economic evaluation of breast cancer therapies in the Netherlands and Sweden. Clin Ther. 2013;35(4):e1–7. pmid:23541706
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Park M, Yu SY, Jeon HL, Song I. Factors Affecting Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2023;26(5):436–445. pmid:37565928
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Rautenberg T, Hodgkinson B, Zerwes U, Downes M. Meta-analysis of health state utility values measured by EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ5D) questionnaire in Chinese women with breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):52. pmid:35012457
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Ho PJ, Gernaat SAM, Hartman M, Verkooijen HM. Health-related quality of life in Asian patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020512. pmid:29678980
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Gonzalez L, Bardach A, Palacios A, Peckaitis C, Ciapponi A, Pichón-Riviere A, et al. Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Breast Cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Oncologist. 2021;26(5):e794–e806. pmid:33554426
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Ngo NTN, Nguyen HT, Nguyen PTL, Vo TTT, Phung TL, Pham AG, et al. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients in low-and-middle-income countries in Asia: a systematic review. Front Glob Womens Health. 2023;4:1180383. pmid:37389285
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Yan B, Yang LM, Hao LP, Yang C, Quan L, Wang LH, et al. Determinants of Quality of Life for Breast Cancer Patients in Shanghai, China. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153714. pmid:27082440
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Imran M, Al-Wassia R, Alkhayyat SS, Baig M, Al-Saati BA. Assessment of quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer patients by using EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR-23 questionnaires: A tertiary care center survey in the western region of Saudi Arabia. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219093. pmid:31291302
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. So WK, Choi KC, Chan CW, Chair SY. Age-related differences in the quality of life of Chinese women undergoing adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2011;4(1):19–26. pmid:21210577
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Takada K, Kashiwagi S, Asano Y, Goto W, Morisaki T, Takahashi K, et al. Significance of age-associated quality of life in patients with stage IV breast cancer who underwent endocrine therapy in Japan. Oncol Lett. 2020;20(5):180. pmid:32934747
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Javan Biparva A, Raoofi S, Rafiei S, Pashazadeh Kan F, Kazerooni M, Bagheribayati F, et al. Global quality of life in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2022:bmjspcare-2022-003642. pmid:35710706
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Brusniak K, Feisst M, Sebesteny L, Hartkopf A, Graf J, Engler T, et al. Measuring the Time to Deterioration for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Using a Web-Based Monitoring Application: Longitudinal Cohort Study. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(4):e25776. pmid:34636732
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Guo YQ, Ju QM, You M, Liu Y, Yusuf A, Soon LK. Depression, anxiety and stress among metastatic breast cancer patients on chemotherapy in China. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):33. pmid:36747213
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Adeyemi OJ, Gill TL, Paul R, Huber LB. Evaluating the association of self-reported psychological distress and self-rated health on survival times among women with breast cancer in the U.S. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260481. pmid:34852013
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Javan Biparva A, Raoofi S, Rafiei S, Masoumi M, Doustmehraban M, Bagheribayati F, et al. Global depression in breast cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(7):e0287372. pmid:37494393
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Ng CG, Mohamed S, See MH, Harun F, Dahlui M, Sulaiman AH, et al. Anxiety, depression, perceived social support and quality of life in Malaysian breast cancer patients: a 1-year prospective study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:205. pmid:26715073
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. An Y, Fu G, Yuan G. Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer: The Influence of Family Caregiver’s Burden and the Mediation of Patient’s Anxiety and Depression. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2019;207(11):921–926. pmid:31517713
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Bates-Fraser LC, Riley S, Stopforth C, Moertl K, Edgar K, Stoner L, et al. Home-based exercise improves quality of life in breast and prostate cancer survivors: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0284427. pmid:37079635
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. World Health Organization. Breast cancer. 2024 Mar 13 [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Data visualization tools for exploring the global cancer burden in 2022. 2024 Mar [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/en

[ref3] 3. Klapper LN, Glathe S, Vaisman N, Hynes NE, Andrews GC, Sela M, et al. The ErbB-2/HER2 oncoprotein of human carcinomas may function solely as a shared coreceptor for multiple stroma-derived growth factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(9):4995–5000. pmid:10220407
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Hicks DG, Kulkarni S. HER2+ breast cancer: review of biologic relevance and optimal use of diagnostic tools. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129(2):263–73. pmid:18208807
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Krishnamurti U, Silverman JF. HER2 in breast cancer: a review and update. Adv Anat Pathol. 2014;21(2):100–7. pmid:24508693
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Swain SM, Shastry M, Hamilton E. Targeting HER2-positive breast cancer: advances and future directions. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(2):101–126. pmid:36344672
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Loibl S, Gianni L. HER2-positive breast cancer. Lancet. 2017;389(10087):2415–2429. pmid:27939064
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Ahmed S, Sami A, Xiang J. HER2-directed therapy: current treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22(2):101–16. pmid:25634227
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Maximiano S, Magalhães P, Guerreiro MP, Morgado M. Trastuzumab in the Treatment of Breast Cancer. BioDrugs. 2016;30(2):75–86. pmid:26892619
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Yu Q, Zhu Z, Liu Y, Zhang J, Li K. Efficacy and Safety of HER2-Targeted Agents for Breast Cancer with HER2-Overexpression: A Network Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127404. pmid:25993646
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Tran TH, Trinh NL, Hoang Y, Nguyen TL, Vu TT. Health-Related Quality of Life Among Vietnamese Breast Cancer Women. Cancer Control. 2019;26(1):1073274819862787. pmid:31293170
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Tran TN, Pham NT, Phan Thi DQ, Nguyen HS. Quality of Life and Its Contributing Factors among Breast Cancer Patients after Intensive Treatment. Ann Cancer Res Ther. 2020;28(2):102–6.
View Article
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Ngan TT, Mai VQ, Van Minh H, Donnelly M, O’Neill C. Health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients compared to cancer survivors and age-matched women in the general population in Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(3):777–787. pmid:34541610
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] PubMed/NCBI

[47] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Monteiro MR, Nunes NCC, Crespo J, Abrahão ABK, Buscacio G, Lerner LCC, et al. Patient-centered Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Description of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC-QLQ-BR23 Measurements in Real-world Data and Their Association With Survival. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2022;34(9):608–616. pmid:35667940
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] PubMed/NCBI

[51] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Verrill M, Wardley AM, Retzler J, Smith AB, Bottomley C, Ní Dhochartaigh S, et al. Health-related quality of life and work productivity in UK patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: a cross-sectional study evaluating the relationships between disease and treatment stage. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):353. pmid:33138835
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Kim Halford W, Frost ADJ. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10: A Brief Measure for Routine Psychotherapy Outcome and Progress Assessment. Behav Change. 2021;38(4):221–234.
View Article
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. NovoPsych. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-10). [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://novopsych.com.au/assessments/depression/depression-anxiety-stress-scale-dass-10/

[ref18] 18. Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–1257. pmid:32514643
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] PubMed/NCBI

[63] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L. 2023 Dec 13 [Cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/
View Article
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Mai VQ, Sun S, Minh HV, Luo N, Giang KB, Lindholm L, et al. An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(7):1923–1933. pmid:32221805
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] PubMed/NCBI

[70] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Tran BT, Pham NH, Nguyen TX, Choi KS, Sohn DK, Kim SY, et al. Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life Among Colorectal Cancer Patients Using the Vietnamese Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Dec 4;14:2427–2437. pmid:33304097
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee JW, Lee HJ, Kim JK. Validity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for breast cancer patients in Korea. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:203. pmid:26694964
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Yang Q, Yu X, Zhang W. Health variations among breast-cancer patients from different disease states: evidence from China. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1033. pmid:33176759
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Wang L, Shi JF, Zhu J, Huang HY, Bai YN, Liu GX, et al. Health-related quality of life and utility scores of patients with breast neoplasms in China: A multicenter cross-sectional survey. Breast. 2018;39:53–62. pmid:29597131
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Lee CF, Ng R, Luo N, Wong NS, Yap YS, Lo SK, et al. The English and Chinese versions of the five-level EuroQoL Group’s five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were valid and reliable and provided comparable scores in Asian breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(1):201–9. pmid:22669608
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Sibhat SG, Fenta TG, Sander B, Gebretekle GB. Health-related quality of life and its predictors among patients with breast cancer at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):165. pmid:31690327
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Wadasadawala T, Mohanty SK, Sen S, Khan PK, Pimple S, Mane JV, et al. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) Using EQ-5D-5L: Value Set Derived for Indian Breast Cancer Cohort. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2023;24(4):1199–1207. pmid:37116141
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Rukminingsih F, Andayani T, Rahmawati F, Widayati K. Health-related quality of life in early breast cancer patients with hormone responsive. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2018;10:47.
View Article
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Wyatt G, Sikorskii A, Tamkus D, You M. Quality of life among advanced breast cancer patients with and without distant metastasis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22(2):272–80. pmid:23252474
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] PubMed/NCBI

[105] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Liu L, Li S, Wang M, Chen G. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L health state utilities using four country-specific tariffs on a breast cancer patient sample in mainland China. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1049–1056. pmid:28706443
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Frederix GW, Quadri N, Hövels AM, van de Wetering FT, Tamminga H, Schellens JH, et al. Utility and work productivity data for economic evaluation of breast cancer therapies in the Netherlands and Sweden. Clin Ther. 2013;35(4):e1–7. pmid:23541706
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] PubMed/NCBI

[113] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Park M, Yu SY, Jeon HL, Song I. Factors Affecting Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2023;26(5):436–445. pmid:37565928
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Rautenberg T, Hodgkinson B, Zerwes U, Downes M. Meta-analysis of health state utility values measured by EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ5D) questionnaire in Chinese women with breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):52. pmid:35012457
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Ho PJ, Gernaat SAM, Hartman M, Verkooijen HM. Health-related quality of life in Asian patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020512. pmid:29678980
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Gonzalez L, Bardach A, Palacios A, Peckaitis C, Ciapponi A, Pichón-Riviere A, et al. Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Breast Cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Oncologist. 2021;26(5):e794–e806. pmid:33554426
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] PubMed/NCBI

[129] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Ngo NTN, Nguyen HT, Nguyen PTL, Vo TTT, Phung TL, Pham AG, et al. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients in low-and-middle-income countries in Asia: a systematic review. Front Glob Womens Health. 2023;4:1180383. pmid:37389285
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Yan B, Yang LM, Hao LP, Yang C, Quan L, Wang LH, et al. Determinants of Quality of Life for Breast Cancer Patients in Shanghai, China. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153714. pmid:27082440
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Imran M, Al-Wassia R, Alkhayyat SS, Baig M, Al-Saati BA. Assessment of quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer patients by using EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR-23 questionnaires: A tertiary care center survey in the western region of Saudi Arabia. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219093. pmid:31291302
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. So WK, Choi KC, Chan CW, Chair SY. Age-related differences in the quality of life of Chinese women undergoing adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2011;4(1):19–26. pmid:21210577
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Takada K, Kashiwagi S, Asano Y, Goto W, Morisaki T, Takahashi K, et al. Significance of age-associated quality of life in patients with stage IV breast cancer who underwent endocrine therapy in Japan. Oncol Lett. 2020;20(5):180. pmid:32934747
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Javan Biparva A, Raoofi S, Rafiei S, Pashazadeh Kan F, Kazerooni M, Bagheribayati F, et al. Global quality of life in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2022:bmjspcare-2022-003642. pmid:35710706
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Brusniak K, Feisst M, Sebesteny L, Hartkopf A, Graf J, Engler T, et al. Measuring the Time to Deterioration for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Using a Web-Based Monitoring Application: Longitudinal Cohort Study. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(4):e25776. pmid:34636732
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Guo YQ, Ju QM, You M, Liu Y, Yusuf A, Soon LK. Depression, anxiety and stress among metastatic breast cancer patients on chemotherapy in China. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):33. pmid:36747213
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] PubMed/NCBI

[161] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Adeyemi OJ, Gill TL, Paul R, Huber LB. Evaluating the association of self-reported psychological distress and self-rated health on survival times among women with breast cancer in the U.S. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260481. pmid:34852013
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] PubMed/NCBI

[165] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Javan Biparva A, Raoofi S, Rafiei S, Masoumi M, Doustmehraban M, Bagheribayati F, et al. Global depression in breast cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(7):e0287372. pmid:37494393
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] PubMed/NCBI

[169] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Ng CG, Mohamed S, See MH, Harun F, Dahlui M, Sulaiman AH, et al. Anxiety, depression, perceived social support and quality of life in Malaysian breast cancer patients: a 1-year prospective study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:205. pmid:26715073
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] PubMed/NCBI

[173] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. An Y, Fu G, Yuan G. Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer: The Influence of Family Caregiver’s Burden and the Mediation of Patient’s Anxiety and Depression. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2019;207(11):921–926. pmid:31517713
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] PubMed/NCBI

[177] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Bates-Fraser LC, Riley S, Stopforth C, Moertl K, Edgar K, Stoner L, et al. Home-based exercise improves quality of life in breast and prostate cancer survivors: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0284427. pmid:37079635
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] PubMed/NCBI

[181] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

Study design and setting

Participants and the sample size

The questionnaire and measurements

Data analysis

Results

The general characteristics of participants

Patients’ health profile across five health dimensions of EQ 5D-5L and DASS-10

Factors associated with the health-state utility of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Discussion

Patients’ health profile across five health dimensions of EQ 5D-5L and DASS-10

Patients’ EQ-VAS scores

Health-state utility and associated factors

Strengths and limitations

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 File. Data file (raw data).

Acknowledgments

References