Mapping the University of Washington Quality of life questionnaire onto EQ-5D and HUI-3 indices in patients with head and neck cancer.
EQ-5D
QALYs
University of Washington Quality of life questionnaire
cross-walking
head and neck cancer (HNC)
health state utility values (HSUVs)
health utilities index mark 3
health-related quality of life (HRQoL)
mapping algorithms
multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs)
preference-based measures
Journal
Head & neck
ISSN: 1097-0347
Titre abrégé: Head Neck
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8902541
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
11
05
2019
revised:
01
11
2019
accepted:
13
11
2019
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
26
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is no mechanism to predict health utility (HU) values from the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UWQoL) scores. We sought to develop a mapping algorithm capable of using UWQoL data to approximate HU scores. Outpatients with head and neck cancer completed the UWQoL, EQ-5D, and the Health Utilities Index-Mark 3 (HUI-3). Results of the UWQoL were mapped onto both EQ-5D and HUI-3 scores using ordinary least-squares regression models. Two-part models were explored. The predictive power of the model was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation. A total of 209 patients were recruited. The reduced model converting UWQoL data into EQ-5D scores performed best (adjusted R The abovementioned algorithms enable researchers to perform health economic evaluations with existing UWQoL data in cases where prospectively collected HU values are not available.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is no mechanism to predict health utility (HU) values from the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire (UWQoL) scores. We sought to develop a mapping algorithm capable of using UWQoL data to approximate HU scores.
METHODS
Outpatients with head and neck cancer completed the UWQoL, EQ-5D, and the Health Utilities Index-Mark 3 (HUI-3). Results of the UWQoL were mapped onto both EQ-5D and HUI-3 scores using ordinary least-squares regression models. Two-part models were explored. The predictive power of the model was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation.
RESULTS
A total of 209 patients were recruited. The reduced model converting UWQoL data into EQ-5D scores performed best (adjusted R
CONCLUSIONS
The abovementioned algorithms enable researchers to perform health economic evaluations with existing UWQoL data in cases where prospectively collected HU values are not available.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
513-521Informations de copyright
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339-1341.
Vokes EE, Weichselbaum RR, Lippman SM, Hong WK. Head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(3):184-194.
Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1-30.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727-1736.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7(6):490-502.
Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The health utilities index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):54.
Meregaglia M, Cairns J. A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):174.
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.
Hassan SJ, Weymuller EA. Assessment of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck. 1993;15(6):485-496.
Rogers SN, Gwanne S, Lowe D, Humphris G, Yueh B, Weymuller EA Jr. The addition of mood and anxiety domains to the University of Washington quality of life scale. Head Neck. 2002;24(6):521-529.
Ojo B, Genden EM, Teng MS, Milbury K, Misiukiewicz KJ, Badr H. A systematic review of head and neck cancer quality of life assessment instruments. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(10):923-937.
Rogers S, Miller R, Ali K, Minhas A, Williams H, Lowe D. Patients' perceived health status following primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35(10):913-919.
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, 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. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365-376.
Bjordal K, Hammerlid E, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, et al. Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-H&N35. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(3):1008-1008.
Excellence NIfHCa. NICE position statement on the EQ5D-5L. 2017. https://euroqol.org/nice-position-statement-on-the-eq-5d-5l/. Accessed January 13, 2019.
Excellence NIfHC. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed January 13, 2019.
Wailoo AJ, Hernandez-Alava M, Manca A, et al. Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2017;20(1):18-27.
Acaster S, Pinder B, Mukuria C, Copans A. Mapping the EQ-5D index from the cystic fibrosis questionnaire-revised using multiple modelling approaches. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):33.
Terrell JE, Ronis DL, Fowler KE, et al. Clinical predictors of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(4):401-408.
Noel CW, Lee DJ, Kong Q, et al. Comparison of health state utility measures in patients with head and neck Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;141(8):696-703.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res. 2004;33(2):261-304.
Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, et al. Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: the MAPS statement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):106.
Chan KK, Willan AR, Gupta M, Pullenayegum E. Underestimation of uncertainties in health utilities derived from mapping algorithms involving health-related quality-of-life measures: statistical explanations and potential remedies. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):863-872.
Chuang L-H, Whitehead SJ. Mapping for economic evaluation. Br med Bull. 2012;101(1):1-15.
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 Outcomes. 2008;6(1):51.
Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16(1):202-210.
Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:151.
Dakin H, Abel L, Burns R, Yang Y. Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database and application of the MAPS statement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):31.
López-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F, et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(5):513-520.
Pullenayegum EM, Tarride J-E, Xie F, Goeree R, Gerstein HC, O'reilly D. Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: are Tobit and CLAD models appropriate? Value Health. 2010;13(4):487-494.