Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments.

OBJECTIVES To estimate models, via ordinary least squares regression, for predicting Euro Qol 5D (EQ-5D), Short Form 6D (SF-6D), and 15D utilities from scale scores of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). METHODS Forty-eight gastric cancer patients, split up into equal subgroups by age, sex, and chemotherapy scheme, were interviewed, and the survey included the QLQ-C30, SF-36, EQ-5D, and 15D instruments, along with sociodemographic and clinical data. Model predictive ability and explanatory power were assessed by root mean square error (RMSE) and adjusted R(2) values, respectively. Pearson's r between predicted and reported utility indices was compared. Three random subsamples, half in size the initial sample, were created and used for "external" validation of the modeling equations. RESULTS Explanatory power was high, with adjusted R(2) reaching 0.909, 0.833, and 0.611 for 15D, SF-6D, and EQ-5D, respectively. After normalization of RMSE to the range of possible values, the prediction errors were 12.0, 5.4, and 5.6% for EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D, respectively. The estimation equations produced a range of utility scores similar to those achievable by the standard scoring algorithms. Predicted and reported indices from the validation samples were comparable thus confirming the previous results. CONCLUSIONS Evidence on the ability of QLQ-C30 scale scores to validly predict 15D and SF-6D utilities, and to a lesser extent, EQ-5D, has been provided. The modeling equations must be tried in future studies with larger and more diverse samples to confirm their appropriateness for estimating quality-adjusted life-year in cancer-patient trials including only the QLQ-C30.

[1]  K. Muir,et al.  A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged > 45 years , 2008 .

[2]  H. Sintonen,et al.  Valuation and preliminary validation of the Greek 15D in a sample of patients with coronary artery disease. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[3]  H. Sintonen,et al.  Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review , 2006, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[4]  D. Feeny,et al.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. , 1996, Medical care.

[5]  J. Brazier,et al.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[6]  Unto Häkkinen,et al.  Measuring inequality in self-reported health-discussion of a recently suggested approach using Finnish data. , 2004, Health economics.

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

[8]  P. Dolan,et al.  The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. , 1996, Health economics.

[9]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[10]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures , 2010, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[11]  Fotios Anagnostopoulos,et al.  Construct Validation of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[12]  M. Farrell,et al.  Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[13]  K. Stavem,et al.  Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  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.

[15]  Vahram Ghushchyan,et al.  A National Catalog of Preference-Based Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States , 2005, Medical care.

[16]  H. Sintonen The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[17]  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.

[18]  Mark Sculpher,et al.  Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina , 2005, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[19]  L. Vlahos,et al.  The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ‐C30, version 3.0) in terminally ill cancer patients under palliative care: Validity and reliability in a Hellenic sample , 2003 .

[20]  M. van der Pol,et al.  Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

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

[22]  D. Niakas,et al.  Validating and norming of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[23]  J. Thumboo,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): Validation of English version in Singapore , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[24]  G. Apolone,et al.  Evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire: a comparison with SF-36 Health Survey in a cohort of Italian long-survival cancer patients. , 1998, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[25]  Andrew Bottomley,et al.  EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual , 1995 .

[26]  Y. Tountas,et al.  Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[27]  John E. Brazier,et al.  Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[28]  Dennis A. Revicki,et al.  Relationship between health status and utility measures in older claudicants , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

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

[30]  M. Boyle,et al.  Multiattribute and Single‐Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System , 2002, Medical care.

[31]  M. Drummond Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[32]  Martin J Buxton,et al.  Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohn's Disease Activity Index in Crohn's disease and measures of utility. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

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

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

[35]  D. Feeny,et al.  Health Utilities Index Mark 3 , 2016 .

[36]  Nick Kontodimopoulos,et al.  Validity of the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) instrument in a Greek general population. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[37]  Nick Kontodimopoulos,et al.  An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy. , 2008, Health policy.