Estimation of Minimally Important Differences in EQ-5D Utility and VAS Scores in Cancer

Overview

Journal Health Qual Life Outcomes

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Public Health

Date 2007 Dec 25

PMID 18154669

Citations 376

Authors

A Simon Pickard

Maureen P Neary

David Cella

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Understanding what constitutes an important difference on a HRQL measure is critical to its interpretation. The aim of this study was to provide a range of estimates of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D scores in cancer and to determine if estimates are comparable in lung cancer.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on cross-sectional data collected from 534 cancer patients, 50 of whom were lung cancer patients. A range of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D index-based utility (UK and US) scores and VAS scores were estimated using both anchor-based and distribution-based (1/2 standard deviation and standard error of the measure) approaches. Groups were anchored using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ratings and FACT-G total score-based quintiles.

Results: For UK-utility scores, MID estimates based on PS ranged from 0.10 to 0.12 both for all cancers and for lung cancer subgroup. Using FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.09 to 0.10 for all cancers, and 0.07 to 0.08 for lung cancer. For US-utility scores, MIDs ranged from 0.07 to 0.09 grouped by PS for all cancers and for lung cancer; when based on FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.06 to 0.07 in all cancers and 0.05 to 0.06 in lung cancer. MIDs for VAS scores were similar for lung and all cancers, ranging from 8 to 12 (PS) and 7 to 10 (FACT-G quintiles).

Discussion: Important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores were similar for all cancers and lung cancer, with the lower end of the range of estimates closer to the MID, i.e. 0.08 for UK-index scores, 0.06 for US-index scores, and 7 [corrected] for VAS scores.

Citing Articles

Worsening Heart Failure and Medication Use in HFrEF: A Finnish Retrospective Registry Study and Patient Survey.

Vesikansa A, Mehtala J, Smith S, Kirjavainen A, Huupponen J, Saavuori N Int J Heart Fail. 2025; 7(1):6-18.

PMID: 39911569 PMC: 11791173. DOI: 10.36628/ijhf.2024.0028.

Patient-Reported Outcomes: Comparing Functional Avoidance and Standard Thoracic Radiation Therapy in Lung Cancer.

Poiset S, Lombardo J, Castillo E, Castillo R, Jones B, Miften M JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2025; 9:e2400202.

PMID: 39903899 PMC: 11801246. DOI: 10.1200/CCI-24-00202.

Maintenance of patient-reported health-related quality of life post neoadjuvant relugolix prior to the initiation of prostate radiation therapy.

Koh M, Koh M, Hsueh J, Gallagher L, Danner M, Zwart A Front Oncol. 2025; 14:1496646.

PMID: 39896185 PMC: 11782254. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1496646.

Patient experience with acute hepatic porphyria before and after long-term givosiran treatment in a qualitative interview study.

Naik H, Brown M, Meninger S, Lombardelli S Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2025; 42():101174.

PMID: 39811158 PMC: 11731774. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgmr.2024.101174.

Concurrent Validity Between EQ-5D and HRQ-6D Measures in Patients with Different Primary Diagnoses.

Bujang M, Hon Y, Lai W, Yap E, Tiong X, Ratnasingam S J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39797147 PMC: 11722335. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010064.

References

Pickard A, Wilke C, Lin H, Lloyd A . Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007; 25(5):365-84. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002. View

Webster K, Cella D, Yost K . The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1:79. PMC: 317391. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-79. View

Pickard A, De Leon M, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S . Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007; 45(3):259-63. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81. View

Johnson J, Pickard A . Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care. 2000; 38(1):115-21. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013. View

de Haes J, Curran D, Young T, Bottomley A, Flechtner H, Aaronson N . Quality of life evaluation in oncological clinical trials - the EORTC model. The EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 2000; 36(7):821-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00007-1. View

Rabin R, de Charro F . EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):337-43. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002087. View

Norman G, Sridhar F, Guyatt G, Walter S . Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001; 39(10):1039-47. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002. View

Cella D, Eton D, Fairclough D, Bonomi P, Heyes A, Silberman C . What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55(3):285-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00477-2. View

Cella D, Eton D, Lai J, Peterman A, Merkel D . Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003; 24(6):547-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00529-8. View

10.

Eton D, Cella D, Yost K, Yount S, Peterman A, Neuberg D . A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57(9):898-910. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.012. View

11.

Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D, Horton J, Davis T, McFadden E . Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5(6):649-55. View

12.

Aaronson N, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez N . 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):365-76. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365. View

13.

Lydick E, Epstein R . Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993; 2(3):221-6. DOI: 10.1007/BF00435226. View

14.

Norman G, Stratford P, Regehr G . Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(8):869-79. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00097-8. View

15.

Dolan P . Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997; 35(11):1095-108. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. View

16.

Wyrwich K, Nienaber N, Tierney W, Wolinsky F . Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999; 37(5):469-78. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199905000-00006. View

17.

Shaw J, Johnson J, Coons S . US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005; 43(3):203-20. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003. View

18.

Wyrwich K, Tierney W, Babu A, Kroenke K, Wolinsky F . A comparison of clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with chronic lung disease, asthma, or heart disease. Health Serv Res. 2005; 40(2):577-91. PMC: 1361158. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00373.x. View

19.

Walters S, Brazier J . Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(6):1523-32. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. View

20.

Steel J, Eton D, Cella D, Olek M, Carr B . Clinically meaningful changes in health-related quality of life in patients diagnosed with hepatobiliary carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2005; 17(2):304-12. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdj072. View