Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35, onto EQ-5D-5L and HUI-3 indices in patients with head and neck cancer.
QALYs
cross walking
head and neck cancer (HNC)
health state utility values (HSUVs)
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:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
22
06
2019
revised:
25
03
2020
accepted:
03
04
2020
pubmed:
26
4
2020
medline:
28
5
2021
entrez:
26
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We sought to develop mapping functions that use EORTC responses to approximate health utility (HU) scores for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). In total, 209 outpatients with HNC completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 & QLQ-H&N35 (EORTC), EQ-5D-5L and the HUI-3. Results of the EORTC were mapped onto both EQ-5D-5L and HUI-3 scores using ordinary least squares regression and two-part models. The OLS model mapping EORTC onto the EQ-5D-5L performed best (adjusted R The EORTC to EQ-5D-5L mapping algorithm has good predictive validity and may enable researchers to translate EORTC scores into HU scores for head and neck patients with cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We sought to develop mapping functions that use EORTC responses to approximate health utility (HU) scores for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).
METHODS
In total, 209 outpatients with HNC completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 & QLQ-H&N35 (EORTC), EQ-5D-5L and the HUI-3. Results of the EORTC were mapped onto both EQ-5D-5L and HUI-3 scores using ordinary least squares regression and two-part models.
RESULTS
The OLS model mapping EORTC onto the EQ-5D-5L performed best (adjusted R
CONCLUSION
The EORTC to EQ-5D-5L mapping algorithm has good predictive validity and may enable researchers to translate EORTC scores into HU scores for head and neck patients with cancer.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2277-2286Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
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.
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. JNCI 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, 1019.
Ringash J, Bezjak A. A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck. 2001;23(3):201-213.
Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339-1341.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mukuria C, Rowen D, Harnan S, et al. An updated systematic review of studies mapping (or cross-walking) measures of health-related quality of life to generic preference-based measures to generate utility values. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(3):295-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00467-6.
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.
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.
Stephens RF, Noel CW, Su JS, et al. Mapping the University of Washington Quality of life questionnaire onto EQ-5D and HUI-3 indices in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2020;42(3):513-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26031.
Khan I, Morris S, Pashayan N, Matata B, Bashir Z, Maguirre J. Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):60.
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.
Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Curran D, Grønvold M. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 1999.
Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98-105.
Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. CADTH. 4th ed. Ottawa, CADTH; 2017.
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.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociolog Methods Res. 2004;33(2):261-304.
Excellence NIfHC. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal, https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Published 2013. Accessed January 13, 2019.
Chuang L-H, Whitehead SJ. Mapping for economic evaluation. Br Med Bull. 2012;101(1):1-15.
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.
Khan KA, Madan J, Petrou S, Lamb SE. Mapping between the Roland Morris Questionnaire and generic preference-based measures. Value Health. 2014;17(6):686-695.
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.
Huang IC, Frangakis C, Atkinson MJ, et al. Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Services Res. 2008;43(1p1):327-339.