Abstract
Background:
Quality of life is an important variable in assessing the impact of a condition on patients. The current literature shows a minimal effect of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) on patients' quality of life. This contrasts with our own experience. Given this disparity, we sought to perform an additional study in this area. Past studies have used multiattribute methods to assess quality of life. In contrast, the present study uses health utility methods, which rate a patient's quality of life from 0 to 1, with 1 representing perfect health.
Methods:
Forty-one patients were guided through two standardized scenarios using a standard gamble process with a trained interviewer. Health utility scores were determined for both basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) using various NMSC treatment modalities.
Results:
All patients had health utility scores of 0.99 or higher. The standard gamble method showed no statistically significant differences in health utility scores for any treatment scenario for BCC or SCC using raw data comparisons. However, a modified standard gamble approach showed significantly higher health utility scores for both BCC and SCC treated using surgical modalities.
Conclusion:
Using the standard gamble health utility method in patients with BCC or SCC, it appears that these tumors have a minimal impact on the quality of life in the present study group. However, the results may simply reflect the poor sensitivity of the standard gamble health utility method to accurately assess quality of life changes in patients with NMSC. A modification of the standard gamble method did show that patients with NMSC associated surgical treatments with a better health outcome. New outcome measures need to be devised to accurately assess the toll of NMSC on patients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.