Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 5/2017

Open Access 01-05-2017

Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L

Authors: Paula K. Lorgelly, Brett Doble, Donna Rowen, John Brazier, Cancer 2015 investigators

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

It has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L.

Methods

A longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs.

Results

Complete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar.

Conclusions

When comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Wisløff, T., Hagen, G., Hamidi, V., Movik, E., Klemp, M., & Olsen, J. A. (2014). Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 367–375.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
3.
Brazier, J., & Dixon, S. (1995). The use of condition specific outcome measures in economic appraisal. Health Economics, 4(4), 255–264.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Stolk, E. A., & Busschbach, J. J. (2003). Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 363–371.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Versteegh, M. M., Leunis, A., Uyl-de Groot, C. A., & Stolk, E. A. (2012). Condition-specific preference-based measures: Benefit or burden? Value in Health, 15(3), 504–513.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Schrag, A., Selai, C., Jahanshahi, M., & Quinn, N. P. (2000). The EQ-5D: A generic quality of life measure—is a useful instrument to measure quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 69(1), 67–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Petrillo, J., & Cairns, J. (2008). Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 8(5), 453–461.CrossRef
8.
Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 215–225.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Doble, B., & Lorgelly, P. (2016). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-3L: Assessing the external validity of existing mapping algorithms. Quality of Life Research, 25(4), 891–911.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Guest, J. F., Nanuwa, K., & Barden, R. (2014). Utility values for specific hepatic encephalopathy health states elicited from the general public in the United Kingdom. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1–9.CrossRef
11.
Schiffman, R. M., Walt, J. G., Jacobsen, G., Doyle, J. J., Lebovics, G., & Sumner, W. (2003). Utility assessment among patients with dry eye disease. Ophthalmology, 110(7), 1412–1419.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Yang, Y., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., & Longworth, L. (2015). An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value in Health, 18(1), 52–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Stevens, K. (2009). Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1105–1113.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Mavranezouli, I., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., Yang, Y., et al. (2012). Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment, 16(2), 1–114.
15.
Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2010). Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: What happens to cross programme comparability? Health Economics, 19(2), 125–129.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Parisot, J. P., Thorne, H., Fellowes, A., Doig, K., Lucas, M., McNeil, J. J., et al. (2015). Cancer 2015: A prospective, population-based cancer cohort—phase 1: Feasibility of genomics-guided precision medicine in the clinic. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 5, 354–369.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Thomas, D. M., Fox, S., Lorgelly, P. K., Ashley, D., Richardson, G., Lipton, L., et al. (2015). Cancer 2015: A longitudinal whole-of-system study of genomic cancer medicine. Drug Discovery Today, 20(12), 1429–1432.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Wong, S., Fellowes, A., Doig, K., Ellul, J., Bosma, T., Irwin, D., et al. (2015). Assessing the clinical value of targeted massively parallel sequencing in a longitudinal, prospective population-based study of cancer patients. British Journal of Cancer, 112(8), 1411–1420.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Cella, D. F., Wiklund, I., Shumaker, S. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1993). Integrating health-related quality of life into cross-national clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 433–440.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., et al. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health, 14(5), 721–731.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Viney, R., Norman, R., Brazier, J., Cronin, P., King, M. T., Ratcliffe, J., et al. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health Economics, 8(1), 41–51.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.): New York: Academic Press.
26.
Obradovic, M., Lal, A., & Liedgens, H. (2013). Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health and quality of life outcomes, 11(1), 1.CrossRef
27.
Ravens-Sieberer, U., Wille, N., Badia, X., Bonsel, G., Burström, K., Cavrini, G., et al. (2010). Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: Results from a multinational study. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 887–897.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Bland, M. J., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 327(8476), 307–310.CrossRef
29.
Rosner, B. A. (2011). The intraclass correlation coefficient. In B. A. Rosner (Ed.), Fundamentals of biostatistics. Pacific Grove.
30.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284.CrossRef
31.
Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(5), 373–383.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Oken, M. M., Creech, R. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–656.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Dowie, J. (2002). Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Economics, 11(1), 1–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Brazier, J., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Measures of health-related quality of life in an imperfect world: A comment on Dowie. Health Economics, 11(1), 17–19. Discussion 21–12.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Yang, Y., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Coyne, K. (2009). Estimating a preference-based single index from the overactive bladder questionnaire. Value in Health, 12(1), 159–166.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., Platts, M., & Zoellner, Y. F. (2005). Estimating a preference-based index for a menopause specific health quality of life questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3(13), 3–13.
37.
Yang, Y., Brazier, J. E., Tsuchiya, A., & Young, T. A. (2011). Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Medical Decision Making, 31(2), 281–291.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Goodwin, E., & Green, C. (2015). A quality-adjusted life-year measure for multiple sclerosis: Developing a patient-reported health state classification system for a multiple sclerosis-specific preference-based measure. Value in Health, 18(8), 1016–1024.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Rowen, D., Mulhern, B., Banerjee, S., van Hout, B., Young, T. A., Knapp, M., et al. (2012). Estimating preference-based single index measures for dementia using DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy. Value in Health, 15(2), 346–356.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Rowen, D., Young, T., Brazier, J., & Gaugris, S. (2012). Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value in Health, 15(8), 1059–1068.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Hatswell, A. J., Pennington, B., Pericleous, L., Rowen, D., Lebmeier, M., & Lee, D. (2014). Patient-reported utilities in advanced or metastatic melanoma, including analysis of utilities by time to death. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1.CrossRef
42.
Lloyd, A. J., Kerr, C., Penton, J., & Knerer, G. (2015). Health-related quality of life and health utilities in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: A survey capturing experiences from a diverse sample of UK patients. Value in Health, 18(8), 1152–1157.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & Van Hout, B. (2015). An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. London: Office of Health Economics Research Paper.
45.
Versteegh, M. M., Vermeulen, K. M., Evers, S. M., de Wit, G. A., Prenger, R., & Stolk, E. A. (2016). Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health.
46.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Johnson, J. A., & Group, o. b. o. t. C. E.-D.-L. V. S. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105.CrossRef
47.
Turner, N., Campbell, J., Peters, T. J., Wiles, N., & Hollinghurst, S. (2013). A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 1.CrossRef
48.
van Stel, H. F., & Buskens, E. (2006). Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., Fayers, P. M., Grimison, P. S., Janda, M., Pallant, J. F., et al. (2014). Deriving a preference-based utility measure for cancer patients from the European organisation for the research and treatment of cancer’s quality of life questionnaire C30: A confirmatory versus exploratory approach. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 5, 119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
King, M., Costa, D., Aaronson, N., Brazier, J., Cella, D., Fayers, P., et al. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 625–636.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N., Brazier, J., Cella, D., Costa, D., et al. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 637–649.CrossRef
52.
Hill, S. R. (2015). Affordable innovation: Future directions in pharmaceutical policy. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 8(Suppl 1), K1.CrossRefPubMedCentral
53.
Howard, D. H., Bach, P. B., Berndt, E. R., & Conti, R. M. (2015). Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 139–162.CrossRef
54.
Garau, M., Shah, K. K., Mason, A. R., Wang, Q., Towse, A., & Drummond, M. F. (2011). Using QALYs in cancer. Pharmacoeconomics, 29(8), 673–685.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L
Authors
Paula K. Lorgelly
Brett Doble
Donna Rowen
John Brazier
Cancer 2015 investigators
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1443-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Quality of Life Research 5/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Recovery support mediates the relationship between parental warmth and quality of life among women with substance use disorders

OriginalPaper

Objectively measured sedentary behavior and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity on the health-related quality of life in US adults: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003–2006

OriginalPaper

Does the EQ-5D capture the effects of physical and mental health status on life satisfaction among older people? A path analysis approach

OriginalPaper

Mobility impairment, social engagement, and life satisfaction among the older population in China: a structural equation modeling analysis

OriginalPaper

Expanding a common metric for depression reporting: linking two scales to PROMIS® depression

OriginalPaper

Investigating acculturation orientations of patients with an immigration background and doctors in Canada: implications for medical advice adherence