Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this article is to map the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D measure to enable the estimation of health state values based on the EORTC QLQ C-30 data. The EORTC QLQ C-30 is of interest because it is the most commonly used instrument to measure the quality of life of cancer patients. METHODS Regression analysis is used to establish the relationship between the two instruments. The performance of the model is assessed in terms of how well the responses to the EORTC QLQ C-30 predict the EQ-5D responses for a separate data set. RESULTS The results showed that the model explaining EQ-5D values predicted well. All of the actual values were within the 95% confidence intervals of the predicted values. More importantly, predicted difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between the arms of the trial was almost identical to the actual difference. CONCLUSION There is potential to estimate EQ-5D values using responses to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30 measure of quality of life. Such potential implies that in studies that do not include disease-specific measures, it might still be possible to estimate QALYs.

[1]  D. Brennan,et al.  Mapping oral health related quality of life to generic health state values , 2006, BMC Health Services Research.

[2]  K. Zimmermann,et al.  PSEUDO‐R2 MEASURES FOR SOME COMMON LIMITED DEPENDENT VARIABLE MODELS , 1996 .

[3]  Andrew Bottomley,et al.  International perspective on health-related quality-of-life research in cancer clinical trials: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  D. Osoba,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  Jacek A Kopec,et al.  A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2005, Social science & medicine.

[6]  Ross D Crosby,et al.  Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. , 2004, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  J. Brazier,et al.  Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition-specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ5D indices , 2002 .

[8]  R. Brooks EuroQol: the current state of play. , 1996, Health policy.

[9]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[10]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[11]  J. Bond,et al.  A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of palliative therapies for patients with inoperable oesophageal cancer. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[12]  Andrew Booth,et al.  A Review of the Use of Health Status Measures in Economic Evaluation , 1999, Journal of health services research & policy.

[13]  R. Prescott,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk older population. The PRIME trial. , 2007, Health technology assessment.

[14]  R. Deyo,et al.  Generic and Disease-Specific Measures in Assessing Health Status and Quality of Life , 1989, Medical care.