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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research

A non-linear beta-binomial regression model for mapping EORTC QLQ- C30 to the EQ-5D-3L in lung cancer patients: a comparison with existing approaches

Authors: Iftekhar Khan, Stephen Morris

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The performance of the Beta Binomial (BB) model is compared with several existing models for mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 (QLQ-C30) on to the EQ-5D-3L using data from lung cancer trials.

Methods

Data from 2 separate non small cell lung cancer clinical trials (TOPICAL and SOCCAR) are used to develop and validate the BB model. Comparisons with Linear, TOBIT, Quantile, Quadratic and CLAD models are carried out. The mean prediction error, R2, proportion predicted outside the valid range, clinical interpretation of coefficients, model fit and estimation of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) are reported and compared. Monte-Carlo simulation is also used.

Results

The Beta-Binomial regression model performed 'best' among all models. For TOPICAL and SOCCAR trials, respectively, residual mean square error (RMSE) was 0.09 and 0.11; R2 was 0.75 and 0.71; observed vs. predicted means were 0.612 vs. 0.608 and 0.750 vs. 0.749. Mean difference in QALY's (observed vs. predicted) were 0.051 vs. 0.053 and 0.164 vs. 0.162 for TOPICAL and SOCCAR respectively. Models tested on independent data show simulated 95% confidence from the BB model containing the observed mean more often (77% and 59% for TOPICAL and SOCCAR respectively) compared to the other models. All algorithms over-predict at poorer health states but the BB model was relatively better, particularly for the SOCCAR data.

Conclusion

The BB model may offer superior predictive properties amongst mapping algorithms considered and may be more useful when predicting EQ-5D-3L at poorer health states. We recommend the algorithm derived from the TOPICAL data due to better predictive properties and less uncertainty.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35(11):1095–1108. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't] 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002CrossRefPubMed
3.
Drummond MA: Economic Evaluation in Health Care. 2001.
4.
Dunlop W, Uhl R, Khan I, Taylor A, Barton G: Quality of life benefits and cost impact of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone versus prolonged release oxycodone in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation: a UK cost-utility analysis. J Med Econ 2012, 15(3):564–575. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't] 10.3111/13696998.2012.665279CrossRefPubMed
5.
Crott R, Versteegh M, Uyl-de-Groot C: An assessment of the external validity of mapping QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D preferences. Qual Life Res 2013, 22(5):1045–1054. Epub 2012 Jun 29 10.1007/s11136-012-0220-9CrossRefPubMed
6.
Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11(2):215–225. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review] 10.1007/s10198-009-0168-zCrossRefPubMed
7.
Barton GR, Sach TH, Jenkinson C, Avery AJ, Doherty M, Muir KR: Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores? Health Qual Life Out 2008, 14: 6.
8.
Jäkel A, Plested M, Dharamshi K, Modha R, Bridge S, Johns A: A systematic review of economic evaluations in second and later lines of therapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013, 11(1):27–43. doi:10.1007/s40258–012–0001–1CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, Viney R: The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26(4):297–310. 10.2165/00019053-200826040-00003CrossRefPubMed
11.
CHMP: Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. 2005.
12.
Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, Gaugris S, Craig BM, King MT, Velikova G: Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 2011, 14(5):721–731. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.004CrossRefPubMed
13.
Round J: Capturing Information Loss in Estimates of Uncertainty That Arise from Mapping Algorithms. ?: Health Economists' Study Group; 2008.
14.
Chuang LH, Whitehead SJ: Mapping for economic evaluation. Br Med Bull 2012, 101: 1–15. 10.1093/bmb/ldr049CrossRefPubMed
15.
Crott R, Briggs A: Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11(4):427–434. 10.1007/s10198-010-0233-7CrossRefPubMed
16.
Jang RW, Isogai PK, Mittmann N, Bradbury PA, Shepherd FA, Feld R, Leighl NB: Derivation of utility values from EORTC QLQ-C30 values in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2009, 4(9):S420-S421.
17.
Kim EJ, Ko SK, Kang HY: Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 to the generic EQ-5D in metastatic breast cancer patients. Qual Life Res 2012, 21(7):1193–1203. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't] 10.1007/s11136-011-0037-yCrossRefPubMed
18.
Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras VH, Paliouras D, Niakas D: Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health 2009, 12(8):1151–1157. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00569.xCrossRefPubMed
19.
McKenzie L, van der Pol M: Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health 2009, 12(1):167–171. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00405.xCrossRefPubMed
20.
Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, Roberts J, O'Hagan A: Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ 2007, 26(3):597–612. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.09.002CrossRefPubMed
21.
Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making 2006, 26(1):18–29. 10.1177/0272989X05284108CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hernández Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R: Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health 2012, 15(3):550–561. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.014CrossRefPubMed
23.
Basu A, Manca A: Regression estimators for generic health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life years. Med Decis Making 2012, 32(1):56–69. 10.1177/0272989X11416988PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
Le QA, Doctor JN: Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using Bayesian networks: an empirical analysis converting SF-12 into EQ-5D utility index in a national US sample. Med Care 2011, 49(5):451–460. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318207e9a8CrossRefPubMed
25.
Versteegh MM, Rowen D, Brazier JE, Stolk EA: Mapping onto EQ-5D for patients in poor health. Health Qual Life Out 2010, 8: 141. 10.1186/1477-7525-8-141CrossRef
26.
Paolino P: Maximum likelihood Estimation of models with beta-distributed dependent variables. Polit Anal 2001, 9(4):325–346. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a004873CrossRef
27.
28.
Lee SM, Khan I, Upadhyay S, Lewanski C, Falk S, Skailes G, Marshall E, Woll PJ, Hatton M, Lal R, Jones R, Toy E, Chao D, Middleton G, Bulley S, Ngai Y, Rudd R, Hackshaw A, Boshoff C: First-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy (TOPICAL): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012, 13(11):1161–1170. Epub 2012 Oct 16 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70412-6PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
29.
Maguire J, Khan I, McMenemin R, O'Rourke N, McNee S, Kelly V, Peedell C, Snee M. SOCCAR: A randomised phase II trial comparing sequential versus concurrent chemotherapy and radical hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with inoperable stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and good performance status. Eur J Cancer . 2014 Oct 7. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.009
30.
Honore B, Khan S, Powell JL: Quantile regression under random censoring. J Econometrics 2002, 109(1):67–105. 10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00142-7CrossRef
31.
32.
Khan S, Powell JL: Two-step estimation of semiparametric censored regression models. J Econometrics 2001, 103(1–2):73–110. 10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00040-9CrossRef
33.
Powell JL: Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression-model. J Econometrics 1984, 25(3):303–325. 10.1016/0304-4076(84)90004-6CrossRef
34.
Kaambwa B, Billingham L, Bryan S: Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. Eur J Health Econ 2013, 14(2):231–241. Epub 2011 Nov 2 10.1007/s10198-011-0364-5CrossRefPubMed
35.
Willan AR: Statistical analysis of cost-effectiveness data from randomized clinical trials. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2006, 6(3):337–346. 10.1586/14737167.6.3.337CrossRefPubMed
36.
Willan AR: Sample size determination for cost-effectiveness trials. Pharmacoeconomics 2011, 29(11):933–949. 10.2165/11587130-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMed
37.
Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ: Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2006.
38.
Ospina R, Ferrari SLP, Cribari-Neto F: A general class of zero-or-one inflated beta regression models. Comp Stat Data Analysis 2004, 31(7):799–815.
39.
Kieschnick R, McCullough BD: Regression analysis of variates observed on (0,1): percentages, proportions and fractions. Stat Model 2003, 3(3):193–213. 10.1191/1471082X03st053oaCrossRef
40.
Swearingen CJ, Castro MSM, Bursac Z: Inflated Beta Regression: Zero, one and Everything in Between. 2012.
41.
Ospina R, Ferrari SLP: A general class of zero-or-one inflated beta regression models. Comput Stat Data Anal 2012, 56: 1609–1623. 10.1016/j.csda.2011.10.005CrossRef
42.
Ferrari SLP, Cribari-Neto F: Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. J Appl Stat 2004, 31(7):799–815. 10.1080/0266476042000214501CrossRef
43.
Fleishman AI: A method of simulating non-normal distributions. Psychometrika 1978, 43: 521–531. 10.1007/BF02293811CrossRef
44.
Pourahmadi M, Daniels MJ, Park T: Simultaneous modelling of the Cholesky decomposition of several covariance matrices. J Multivariate Anal 2007, 98(3):568–587. 10.1016/j.jmva.2005.11.002CrossRef
45.
Kind P: Measuring the value of quality of life in cancer: an index based on EORTC QLQ-C30 presentation (abstract), ASCO 2005 Annual Meeting. J Clin Oncol 2005, 29(16S, Part I and II).
Metadata
Title
A non-linear beta-binomial regression model for mapping EORTC QLQ- C30 to the EQ-5D-3L in lung cancer patients: a comparison with existing approaches
Authors
Iftekhar Khan
Stephen Morris
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0163-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research

Influence of health-related quality of life on health service utilization in Chinese rural-to-urban female migrant workers

Research

Item response theory and factor analysis as a mean to characterize occurrence of response shift in a longitudinal quality of life study in breast cancer patients

Research

Perceptions of symptoms and expectations of advanced therapy for Parkinson’s disease: preliminary report of a Patient-Reported Outcome tool for Advanced Parkinson’s disease (PRO-APD)

Research

Quality of life of Croatian veterans' wives and veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder

Research

Mapping of Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) scores to Assessment of Quality of Life 8D (AQoL-8D) utilities in patients with idiopathic overactive bladder

Research

Quality of life impact of mental health conditions in England: results from the adult psychiatric morbidity surveys