Testing the validity and responsiveness of a new cancer-specific health utility measure (FACT-8D) in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, and comparison to EQ-5D-5L.

Cancer Condition-specific non-preference-based measures Generic preference-based measures Quality of life Utilities

Journal

Journal of patient-reported outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Titre abrégé: J Patient Rep Outcomes
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101722688

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Mar 2020
Historique:
received: 19 06 2019
accepted: 26 02 2020
entrez: 29 3 2020
pubmed: 29 3 2020
medline: 29 3 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The FACT-8D is a new cancer-specific, preference-based measure (PBM) of health, derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) questionnaire. The FACT-8D's measurement properties have not been tested to date. We assessed it's validity and responsiveness in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (RR MCL) and compared the results to the EQ-5D-5L. Blinded analysis of pooled data from a phase 3 clinical trial. FACT-8D baseline and follow-up data (weeks 4, 7, 16, 31) were scored using Australian preference weights, the first available value-set. Convergent validity was assessed by estimating baseline correlations with the FACT-Lym total score, Trial Outcome Index (TOI), FACT-Lym lymphoma-specific sub-scale (LymS), EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and haemoglobin (HgB). Relevant clinical variables were used to categorise patients to test known groups' validity and responsiveness was investigated using data from baseline (n = 250) and week 31 (n = 130). Results were compared with EQ-5D-5L, scored using the UK 3L crosswalk and the 5L England value-sets. The FACT-8D showed good convergent validity and responsiveness; baseline Pearson correlation coefficients between FACT-8D Index scores and other PRO measures were moderate to very strong (range: 0.49 for the EQ-VAS to 0.79 for FACT TOI) and the size of the change in FACT-8D Index scores at week 31 differed significantly (p < 0.005) between patients categorised as improved, worsened or stable using the FACT-Lym total score, LymS, and HgB. However, when assessing known groups' validity, FACT-8D failed to discriminate between patients categorised by health status on four of the seven variables analysed. Overall, FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L performed similarly, although EQ-5D-5L showed better known groups' validity. This is the first investigation into the psychometric properties of the FACT-8D. In this RR MCL trial dataset, it showed good convergent validity and responsiveness, but poorer known groups' validity, and EQ-5D performed as well or better on the tests conducted. The FACT-8D may offer an alternative method to generate utilities for the cost-effectiveness analysis of cancer treatments but needs further testing in other types of cancer patients. Evaluation of utility gains may have been limited by high baseline performance status in this RR MCL trial sample.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The FACT-8D is a new cancer-specific, preference-based measure (PBM) of health, derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) questionnaire. The FACT-8D's measurement properties have not been tested to date. We assessed it's validity and responsiveness in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (RR MCL) and compared the results to the EQ-5D-5L.
METHODS METHODS
Blinded analysis of pooled data from a phase 3 clinical trial. FACT-8D baseline and follow-up data (weeks 4, 7, 16, 31) were scored using Australian preference weights, the first available value-set. Convergent validity was assessed by estimating baseline correlations with the FACT-Lym total score, Trial Outcome Index (TOI), FACT-Lym lymphoma-specific sub-scale (LymS), EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and haemoglobin (HgB). Relevant clinical variables were used to categorise patients to test known groups' validity and responsiveness was investigated using data from baseline (n = 250) and week 31 (n = 130). Results were compared with EQ-5D-5L, scored using the UK 3L crosswalk and the 5L England value-sets.
RESULTS RESULTS
The FACT-8D showed good convergent validity and responsiveness; baseline Pearson correlation coefficients between FACT-8D Index scores and other PRO measures were moderate to very strong (range: 0.49 for the EQ-VAS to 0.79 for FACT TOI) and the size of the change in FACT-8D Index scores at week 31 differed significantly (p < 0.005) between patients categorised as improved, worsened or stable using the FACT-Lym total score, LymS, and HgB. However, when assessing known groups' validity, FACT-8D failed to discriminate between patients categorised by health status on four of the seven variables analysed. Overall, FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L performed similarly, although EQ-5D-5L showed better known groups' validity.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This is the first investigation into the psychometric properties of the FACT-8D. In this RR MCL trial dataset, it showed good convergent validity and responsiveness, but poorer known groups' validity, and EQ-5D performed as well or better on the tests conducted. The FACT-8D may offer an alternative method to generate utilities for the cost-effectiveness analysis of cancer treatments but needs further testing in other types of cancer patients. Evaluation of utility gains may have been limited by high baseline performance status in this RR MCL trial sample.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32219576
doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-0185-3
pii: 10.1186/s41687-020-0185-3
pmc: PMC7099111
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

22

Références

Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Dec;35(Suppl 1):11-19
pubmed: 29052162
Value Health. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(5):721-31
pubmed: 21839411
Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):687-693
pubmed: 28408012
Health Econ. 2018 Jan;27(1):7-22
pubmed: 28833869
Blood. 2008 Jan 15;111(2):558-65
pubmed: 17962512
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
Qual Life Res. 2017 May;26(5):1163-1176
pubmed: 27830513
Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):834-843
pubmed: 27712712
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 10;25(5):579-86
pubmed: 17242396
Patient. 2017 Dec;10(6):677-686
pubmed: 28646416
BMC Nephrol. 2016 Jul 26;17(1):97
pubmed: 27460779
J Clin Oncol. 1993 Mar;11(3):570-9
pubmed: 8445433
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):127-137
pubmed: 28194657
Med Decis Making. 2011 Mar-Apr;31(2):281-91
pubmed: 20924045
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1059-68
pubmed: 23244808
Health Econ. 2018 Jan;27(1):39-49
pubmed: 29063633
Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55
pubmed: 7165009
Lancet. 2016 Feb 20;387(10020):770-8
pubmed: 26673811
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 Jan;18(1):13-25.e6
pubmed: 29122536
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Oct 21;13:171
pubmed: 26489956
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):3059-68
pubmed: 25113753
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Jun;36(6):637-640
pubmed: 29480350
Leuk Lymphoma. 2017 Dec;58(12):2824-2832
pubmed: 28556689

Auteurs

Michael Herdman (M)

Office of Health Economics, Southside, 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK. mherdman@ohe.org.

Cicely Kerr (C)

Janssen-Cilag Ltd, High Wycombe, UK.

Marco Pavesi (M)

Data Management Centre, European Foundation for the Study of Chronic Liver Failure (EF-CLIF), Barcelona, Spain.

Jamie Garside (J)

Janssen-Cilag Ltd, High Wycombe, UK.

Andrew Lloyd (A)

Acaster Lloyd Consulting Ltd, London, UK.

Patricia Cubi-Molla (P)

Office of Health Economics, Southside, 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.

Nancy Devlin (N)

Office of Health Economics, Southside, 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.

Classifications MeSH