The most crude measure of health outcome is vital status-alive or dead. For many diseases, such as cancer, curative treatment is not always possible. Still, the outcomes of noncurative care may be very different. For instance, therapeutic strategies may be associated with similar survival but different toxicities; alternatively, one therapy may yield better survival but more severe side effects, while another treatment may offer poorer survival but better quality of life during the patient's remaining months or years. Thus, decisions about alternative therapies are often based on quality of life considerations, in addition to the likelihood of survival [1,2]. Even when cures are possible, the costs of treatment may exceed an individual's or society's willingness to pay.
Outcomes research is the study of the net effects of the health care process on the health and well-being of individuals and populations. As such, it encompasses a wide breadth of issues, including research on practice patterns, effectiveness, appropriateness of care, and measurement of patient preferences and health status. Thus, outcomes research can best be seen as a discipline that endeavors to ask which treatment works best, under which circumstances, for which individuals, and at what cost.
The growing interest in the costs and quality of health care during the past decade has contributed to the dramatic growth of the field of outcomes research . Clinicians, consumers, employers, insurance companies, and government agencies are increasingly looking to the results of outcomes research to assist them in determining how to get the most value for their health care efforts. For comprehensive reviews of outcomes research, the interested reader is referred to several excellent sources [4-7].
This paper concentrates on the measurement of health status and preferences for oncology-related health outcomes, broadly referred to as "quality of life" (QOL). Following a summary of the historical evolution of QOL measurement in cancer research, we will de scribe the tools commonly used in the measurement of quality of life and the major methodological issues that investigators or consumers of QOL research should consider. Measurement of patient and population preferences for health outcomes and incorporation of these preferences into economic evaluations of cancer interventions are also highlighted. We conclude with recommendations for future cancer outcomes research.
Evolution of Cancer Outcome Measures
The most general disease outcome measure is death. For cancer, 5-year survival or the interval of disease-free survival has customarily been used to evaluate the success of treatment. Clinical events, such as severity of illness, tumor response, or stage shifts, have served as intermediate measures of outcome, principally because they are believed to be associated with differences in survival. For example, in the landmark Health Insurance Plan (HIP) mammography screening trial, downstaging of breast cancer was initially used to assess effectiveness [8,9]. Proxy measures of intermediate clinical outcomes have included events such as number of consultations, days in the intensive care unit, and need for blood transfusions .
While quality of life has been an implied medical outcome since the time of Hippocrates [3,11], the landmark paper by Karnofsky marked the first explicit effort to systematically assess the impact of cancer treatment on the patient's quality, and not quantity, of life. The Karnofsky performance index uses a scale from 0% to 100% for physician rating of functional status, with 100% reflecting ability to carry on normal activities and 0% representing death. The index was originally used in conjunction with subjective symptoms and tumor response to evaluate the use of nitrogen mustards as palliative cancer therapy . Although the Karnofsky scale was a seminal contribution, it does not meet today's standards for validation and demonstration of instrument reliability (see "Measurement and Analysis Issues" section) .
The next major tools designed to assess the impact of cancer therapy on quality of life were not developed until the early 1980s. In the prototype, the Spitzer Quality of Life Index, QOL continued to be physician-rated . Thus, physician or researcher assessment of symptoms, toxicities, and/or quality of life remained the standard in cancer outcomes research for almost 4 decades.
Increasing consumerism and patient participation in health care decisions, occurring in parallel with the growth in interest in outcomes of care in the late 1970s and 1980s, set the stage for the development of patient-based measures of general and cancer-related quality of life [3,14]. For example, in 1976, Ware and colleagues  presented results validating a patient self-reported measure of general health status from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment. Other patient-rated general health QOL measures developed in this period include the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) [16,17], Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS) [18,19], and Nottingham Health Profile .
In parallel with the development of these patient-rated general health QOL measures, patient assessment tools for measuring the quality of life of cancer patients began to appear during the past 20 years; preliminary incorporation of such measures into cooperative group, randomized, controlled trials occurred in the late 1980s [3,21]. Examples of the instruments that have been used (and will be discussed below) include the LASA-P , Padilla Quality of Life Index , EORTC-QOL [24,25], CARES [26,27], FLIC , and, most recently, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) . Cancer site-specific tools have also been developed in this same time period.
Despite this explosion of QOL measures, incorporation of QOL outcomes into medical research has been slow, and, when used, outcomes have often been poorly measured. For instance, in a recent review of QOL measurement across a variety of medical conditions, Gill and Feinstein  found that 159 different measures of quality of life were used in the 75 articles reviewed. Despite the large number of measures, fewer than half defined the target domains, only 17% included a patient rating of quality of life, and just 9% elicited patients' preferences for health outcomes. In phase III breast cancer randomized controlled trials, as another example, only 4% of trials published from 1985 to 1989 and 6% published from 1990 to 1994 included any QOL assessment; only one study included a measure of patient preference .
1. Selby P, Robertson B: Measurement of quality of life in patients with cancer. Cancer Surv 6(3):521-543, 1987.
2. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH: Patient preferences: survival vs quality-of-life considerations. J Gen Intern Med 8:374-377, 1993.
3. Strain JJ: The evolution of quality of life evaluations in cancer therapy. Oncology 4(5):22-27, May 1990.
4. Patrick DL, Erickson P: Health Status and Health Policy. Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York, Oxford University Press, 1993.
5. Baldwin S, Godfrey C, Propper C (eds): Quality of Life: Perspectives and Policies. London, Routledge, 1990.
6. Drummond MF, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York, Oxford University Press, 1987.
7. Fallowfield L: The Quality of Life: The Missing Measurement in Health Care. London, Souvenir Press, 1990.
8. Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L, and Venet W: Periodic Screening for Breast Cancer: The Health Insurance Plan Project and Its Sequelae, 1963 - 1986. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.
9. Chu KC, Connor RJ: Analysis of the temporal patterns of benefits in the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York trial by stage and age. Am J Epidemiol 133:1039-1049, 1991.
10. Horn SD, Sharkey PD, Bertram DA: Measuring severity of illness: Homogeneous case mix groups. Med Care 21:4-25, 1983.
11. Ganz PA: Quality of life measures in cancer chemotherapy, methodology and implications. PharmacoEcon 5:376-388, 1994.
12. Karnofsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF, et al: The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer 1:634-656, 1948.
13. Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, et al: Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. A concise QL-index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis 34:585-597, 1981.
14. Heithoff KA, Lohr KN: Effectiveness and Outcomes in Health Care. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1990.
15. Ware JE, Johnston SA, Davies-Avery A, et al: Conceptualization and measurement of health for adults in the health insurance study. Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corporation, 1979.
16. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, et al: The Sickness Impact Profile: Conceptual formulation and methodological development of a health status index. Int J Health Serv 6:393-415, 1976.
17. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al: The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final version of a health status measure. Med Care 19:787-805, 1981.
18. Derogatis LR, Lopez M: Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS & PAIS-SR): Scoring, Procedures & Administration Manual: I. Baltimore, Clinical Psychometric Research, 1983.
19. Derogatis LR: The Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS). J Psychosom Res 30:77-91, 1986.
20. Hunt S, McKenna SP, McEwen J, et al: The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 15A:221-229, 1981.
21. Holland JC, Silberfarb P, Tross S, et al: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Experience, Brookline, MA, USA, in Ventafridda V et al (eds): Assessment of Quality of Life and Cancer Treatment: Proceedings of the International Workshop, November 1985, International Congress Series, vol 702, pp 89-101. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (Biomedical Division), 1986.
22. Priestman TJ, Baum M: Evaluation of quality of life in patients receiving treatment for advanced breast cancer. Lancet 1:899-901, 1976.
23. Padilla GV, Presant C, Grant MM, et al: Quality of life index for patients with cancer. Res Nurs Health 6:117-126, 1983.
24. Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, Ahmedzai S: A modular approach to quality-of-life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Recent Results Cancer Res 111:231-249, 1988.
25. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Q-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365-376, 1993.
26. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Cancer Inventory of Problem Situations: An instrument for assessing cancer patients rehabilitation needs. J Psychosocial Oncol 1:11-24, 1983.
27. Schag CAC, Heinrich RL: Development of a comprehensive quality of life measurement tool: CARES. Oncology 4 (5):135-138, May 1990.
28. Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, et al: Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: The Functional Living Index-Cancer: Development and validation. J Clin Oncol 2:472-483, 1984.
29. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11:570-579, 1993.
30. Gill TM, Feinstein AR: A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 272:619-626, 1994.
31. Mandelblatt JS: Historical and methodological perspectives on cancer outcomes research. Presented at the 1995 Quality of Life Symposium: Economic and Quality of Life Outcomes in Oncology. St. Mary Medical Center, Long Beach, Calif, April 4, 1995.
32. Andrews FM, Withey SB: Social Indicators of Well Being: Americans' Perception of Life Quality. New York, Plenum, 1976.
33. Campbell A, Converse P, Rodgers WL: Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfaction. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1976.
34. Campbell A: The Sense of Well-Being in America: Recent Patterns and Trends. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1981.
35. Breslow L: A quantitative approach to the World Health Organization definition of health: Physical, mental and social well-being. Int J Epidemiol 1:347-355, 1972.
36. De Haes JCJM: Quality of life: Conceptual and theoretical considerations, in Watson, et al (eds): Psychosoc Oncol, pp 61-70. Oxford, Pergamon press, 1988.
37. Cella DF, Cherin EA: Quality of life during and after cancer treatment. Compr Ther 14:69-75, 1988.
38. Walker SR, Rosser RN (eds): Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. London, Kluwer Academic Publishing, 1992.
39. Spilker B: Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York, Raven Press, 1990.
40. Spilker B, Molinek FR Jr, Johnson KA, et al: Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Med Care 28:DS1-DS77, 1990.
41. Patrick DL, Erickson P: What constitutes quality of life? Concepts and dimensions. Clin Nutr 7:53-63, 1988.
42. Hollandsworth JG Jr: Evaluating the impact of medical treatment on the quality of life: A five year update. Soc Sci Med 26:425-434, 1988.
43. Aaronson NK: Quality of life: What is it? How should it be measured? Oncology 2 (5):69-74, May 1988.
44. Aaronson NK: Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: Methodologic issues. Controlled Clin Trials 10:195S-208S, 1989.
45. De Haes JCJM, Van Knippenberg FCE: The quality of life of cancer patients: A review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 20:809-817, 1985.
46. Nayfield SG, Hailey BJ, McCabe M: Quality of Life Assessment in Cancer Clinical Trials. Report of the Workshop on Quality of Life Research in Cancer Clinical Trials, July 16-17, 1990. Bethesda, MD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NCI, NIH, 1991.
47. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL: Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622-629, 1993.
48. Patrick DL, Deyo RA: Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 27(suppl):S217-S232, 1989.
49. Cella DF, Tulsky DS: Measuring quality of life today: Methodological aspects. Oncology 4 (5):29-38, May 1990.
50. Feeny D, Guyatt G, Patrick D (eds): Proceedings of the International Conference on the Measurement of Quality of Life as an Outcome in Clinical Trials. Controlled Clinical Trials: Design Methods, and Analysis 12:1S-280S, 1991.
51. Moinpour CM, Hayden K, Thompson IM: Quality of life end points in cancer clinical trials: Review and recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:485-495, 1989.
52. Guyatt GH, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten SJ, Feeny DH, et al: Measuring quality of life in clinical trails: A taxonomy and review. Can Med Assoc J 140:1441-1448, 1989.
53. Lohr KN: Advances in health status assessment: Conference proceedings. Med Care 30:1-293, 1992.
54. Tchekmedyian NS, Cella DF: Quality of life in current oncology practice and research. Oncology 4 (5):21-232, May 1990.
55. Clearing House on Health Indexes: Bibliography of Health Indexes. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.
56. BRS Information Technologies: Health and psychosocial instruments (HAPI). Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993.
57. Scott J, Erickson P: The On-Line Guide To Quality-Of-Life Assessment (OLGA). Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993.
58. Brook RH, Ware Jr JE, Davies-Avery A, et al: Overview of adult health status measures fielded in RAND's Health Insurance Study. Med Care 17(suppl):1-131, 1979.
59. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr: The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 26:724-735, 1988.
60. Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al: Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 262:907-913, 1989.
61. Stewart AL, Ware JE: Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1992.
62. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL: A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7:118-133, 1972.
63. Torrance GW, Zipursky A: Cost-effectiveness of antepartum prevention of Rh immunization. Clin-Perinatol 11:267-281, 1984.
64. Ontario Ministry of Health: An overview of the survey content of the Ontario Health Survey. Ontario Health Survey Bulletin, 1990.
65. EuroQol Group: EuroQol-A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Pol 16:199-208, 1990.
66. Brooks RG, Jedteg S, Lindgren B, et al: EuroQol: Health-related quality of life measurement. Results of the Swedish questionnaire exercise. Health Pol 18:37-48, 1991.
67. Nord E: EuroQol: Health related quality of life measurement: Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Pol 18:25-36, 1991.
68. Fanshel S, Bush JW: A health-status Index and its application to health-services outcomes. Oper Res 18:1021-1066, 1970.
69. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM: Towards an operational definition of health. J Health Soc Behav 14:6-23, 1973.
70. Kaplan RM, Bush JW: Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol 1:61-80, 1982.
71. Rosser RM, Watts VC: The measurement of hospital output. Int J Epidemiol 1:361-368, 1972.
72. Rosser RM: Issues of measurement in the design of health indicators: A review, in Culyer AJ (ed): Health Indicators: An International Study for the European Science Foundation, pp 34-81. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1983.
73. Rosser RM, Walter SR: A Health index and output measure, in Walter SR, Rosser RM (eds): Quality of life: Assessment and Application. Lancaster, England, MTP Press, 1988.
74. Rosser RM: From health indicators to quality-adjusted life years: Technical and eth ical issues, in Rosser RM, Hopkins A, Costain B (eds): Measuring the Outcomes of Medical Care, pp 1-17. London, Royal College of Physicians, 1990.
75. Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al: Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 273:129-135, 1995.
76. Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A: A new endpoint for the assessment of adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4:1771-1779, 1986.
77. Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A: Methods for assessing treatment efficacy in trials for adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res 115:211-219, 1989.
78. Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Cavalli F: Quality-of-life-adjusted evaluation of adjuvant therapies for operable breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 114:621-628, 1991.
79. Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Simes RJ, et al: Costs and benefits of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: A quality-adjusted survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 7:36-44, 1989.
80. Schag CAC, Ganz PA, Heinrich RL: CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form (CARES-SF): A cancer specific rehabilitation and quality of life instrument. Cancer 68:1406-1413, 1991.
81. Ganz PA, Schag CAC, Lee JJ, et al: The CARES: A generic measure of health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 1:9-29, 1992.
82. Ganz PA, Coscarelli, Schag CA, et al: Breast conservation versus mastectomy: Is there a difference in psychological adjustment or quality of life in the year after surgery? Cancer 69:1729-1738, 1992.
83. Canales S, Ganz PA, Schag CAC: Translation and validation of a quality of life instrument for Hispanic American cancer patients: methodological considerations. Qual Life Res 4(1):3-11, 1995.
84. Morrow GR, Lindke J, Black P: Measurement of quality of life in patients: Psychometric analyses of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC). Qual Life Res 1:287-296, 1992.
85. Ganz PA, Haskell CA, Figlin RA, et al: Estimating the quality of life in a clinical trial of patients with metastatic lung cancer using the Karnofsky performance status and the Functional Living Index-Cancer. Cancer 61:849-856, 1988.
86. Sprangers MA, Cull A, Bjordal K, et al: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to quality of life assessment: Guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Qual Life Res 2:287-295, 1993.
87. Levine MN, Guyatt GH, Gent M, et al: Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: An instrument for clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 6:1798-1810, 1988.
88. Selby PJ, Chapman JAW, Etazadi-Amoli J, et al: The development of a method for assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. Br J Cancer 50:13-22, 1984.
89. List MA, Ritter-Sterr C, Lansky SB: A performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer 66:564-569, 1990.
90. De Haes JCJM, Van Knippenberg FCE, Neijt JP: Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: Structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer 62:1034-1038, 1990.
91. McCorkle R, Young K: Development of a symptom distress scale. Can Nurs 1:373-378, 1978.
92. McCorkle R, Benoliel JG: Symptom distress, current concerns and mood disturbance after diagnosis of life-threatening disease. Soc Sci Med 17:431-438, 1983.
93. Fishman B, Pasternak S, Wallenstein SL, et al: The Memorial Pain Assessment Card. Cancer 60:1151-1158, 1987.
94. Morrow GR: A patient report measure for the quantification of chemotherapy induced nausea and emesis: Psychometric properties of the Morrow Assessment of Nausea and Emesis (MANE). Br J Cancer 19:S72-S74, 1992.
95. Bindman AB, Keane D, Lurie N: Measuring health changes among severely ill patients: The floor phenomenon. Med Care 28:1142-1152, 1990.
96. Ganiats TG, Palinkas LA, Kaplan RM: Comparison of Quality of Well-Being scale and Functional Status Index in patients with atrial fibrillation. Med Care 30:958-964, 1992.
97. Bassett MT, Krieger N: Social class and black-white difference in breast cancer survival. Am J Publ Health 76:1400-1403, 1986.
98. Axtell IM, Myers MH: Contrasts in survival of black and white cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 60:1209-1215, 1978.
99. Berg JW, Ross R, Latourette HB: Economic status and survival of cancer patients. Cancer 39:467-477, 1977.
100. Mor V: Cancer patients' quality of life over the disease course: Lessons from the real world. J Chronic Dis 40:535-544, 1987.
101. Brody DS: Physician recognition of behavioral, psychosocial, and social aspects of medical care. Arch Intern Med 140:1286-1289, 1980.
102. Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, et al: Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 57:109-112, 1988.
103. Patrick DL, Peach H (eds): Disablement in the Community. Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, 1989.
104. Hays RD, Stewart AL, Sherbourne CD, et al: The 'states vs weights' dilemma in quality of life measurement. Qual Life Res 2:167-168, 1993.
105. vonNeumann J, Morgenstern O: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1944.
106. Torrance GW: Toward a utility theory foundation for health status index models. Health Serv Res 11:349-369, 1976.
107. Torrance GW: Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 40:593-600, 1987.
108. Dean HE: Political and ethical implications of using quality of life as an outcome measure. Semin Oncol Nurs 6:303-308, 1990.
109. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein BE, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: Initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Medical Decision Making 13:89-102, 1993.
110. Sackett DL, Torrance GW: The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 31:697-704, 1978.
111. Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, Bambardier C, et al: Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: Inter-rater and inter-technique comparisons, in Kane RL, Kane RA (eds): Values and Long Term Care, pp 191-214. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1982.
112. Balaban DJ, Sagi PC, Goldfarb NI, et al: Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics: a comparison to general population weights. Med Care 24: 973-980, 1986.
113. Hadorn D: Setting health care priorities in Oregon: Cost-effectiveness meets rule of rescue. JAMA 265:2218-2225, 1991.
114. Torrance GW: Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 10:129-136, 1976.
115. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP: Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Res 30:1043-1069, 1982.
116. Singer PA, Tasch ES, Stocking C, et al: Sex or survival: Trade-offs between quality and quantity of life. J Clin Oncol 9:328-334, 1991.
117. Yellen SB, Cella, Leslie WT: Age and clinical decision making in oncology patients. J Natl Can Inst 86:1766-1770, 1994.
118. Weeks J: Preferences of older cancer patients: Can you judge a book by its cover? J Natl Can Inst 86:1743-1744, 1994.
119. McQuellen RP, Muss HB, Hoffman SL, et al: Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: A study of women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:858-868, 1995.
120. Thurstone L: The Measurement of Value. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1959.
121. Wilson IB, Cleary PD: Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. JAMA 273:59-65, 1995.
122. World Bank: World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health. New York, Oxford University Press, 1993.
123. Mehrez A, Gafni A: Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalent. Medical Decision Making 9:142-149, 1989.
124. Erickson P, Wilson R, Shannon I: Years of Healthy Life. Statistical Notes. Number 7, 1995. US Department of Health and Human Services, PHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 95-1237 4-1485 (4/95).
125. Hillner BE, Smith TJ: Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 324:160-168, 1991.
126. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in metastatic breast cancer. JAMA 267:2055-2061, 1992.
127. Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Desch CE: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cancer treatment: Rational allocation of resources based on decision analysis. J Natl Can Inst 85:1460-1474, 1993.
128. Desch CE, Hillner BE, Smith TJ, et al: Should the elderly receive chemotherapy for node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 11:777-782, 1993.
129. Smith TJ, Hillner BE: The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 11:771-776, 1993.
130. Schulman KA, Yabroff KR: Measuring the cost effectiveness of cancer care. Oncology 9(6):523-533, June 1995.