Dutch Utility Weights for the EORTC Cancer-specific Utility Instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2021 Jan 29

PMID 33512653

Citations 17

Authors

Femke Jansen

Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw

Eva Gamper

Richard Norman

Bernhard Holzner

Madeleine King

Georg Kemmler

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To measure utilities among cancer patients, a cancer-specific utility instrument called the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLU-C10D has been developed based on EORTC quality of life core module (QLQ-C30). This study aimed to provide Dutch utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

Methods: A cross-sectional valuation study was performed in 1017 participants representative in age and gender of the Dutch general population. The valuation method was a discrete choice experiment containing 960 choice sets, i.e. pairs of QLU-C10D health states, each health state described in terms of the 10 QLU-C10D domains and the duration of that health state. Each participant considered 16 choice sets, choosing their preferred health state from each pair. Utility scores were derived using generalized estimation equation models. Non-monotonic levels were combined.

Results: Utility decrements were generated for all 10 QLU-C10D domains, with largest decrements for pain (- 0.242), physical functioning (- 0.228), and role functioning (- 0.149). Non-monotonic levels of emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and appetite loss were combined. No decrement in utility was seen in case of a little or quite a bit impairment in emotional functioning or a little pain. The mean QLU-C10D utility score of the participants was 0.85 (median = 0.91, interquartile range = 0.82 to 0.96).

Conclusion: Dutch utility decrements were generated for the QLU-C10D. These are important for evaluating the cost-utility of new cancer treatments and supportive care interventions. Further insight is warranted into the added value of the QLU-C10D alongside other utility instruments.

Citing Articles

Developing a utility value set for the Gambling Quality of Life Scale-Brief (GQoLS-Brief) using a discrete choice experiment.

Luquiens A, Panjo H, Bonnaire C, Pelletier-Fleury N Qual Life Res. 2024; 34(2):457-469.

PMID: 39592497 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03835-5.

Norwegian and Swedish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.

Rohde G, Lehmann J, Pilz M, Rojas-Concha L, Holzner B, King M Qual Life Res. 2024; 34(2):429-443.

PMID: 39499479 PMC: 11865156. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03824-8.

A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances.

Cao Y, Li H, Cheng L, King M, Kemmler G, Cella D Health Econ Rev. 2024; 14(1):79.

PMID: 39352657 PMC: 11445936. DOI: 10.1186/s13561-024-00560-0.

Valuation of the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) in a Multi-ethnic Asian Setting: How Does Having Cancer Matter?.

Gandhi M, Kanesvaran R, Rashid M, Chong D, Chay W, Tan R Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 42(12):1413-1425.

PMID: 39325297 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01432-5.

Cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy vs. conventional radiotherapy for patients with brain tumors in Sweden: results from a non-randomized prospective multicenter study.

Sampaio F, Langegard U, de Alva P, Flores S, Nystrand C, Fransson P Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2024; 22(1):66.

PMID: 39272105 PMC: 11396687. DOI: 10.1186/s12962-024-00577-6.

References

Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, Gaugris S, Craig B, King M . Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health. 2011; 14(5):721-31. PMC: 3811066. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.004. View

McTaggart-Cowan H, King M, Norman R, Costa D, Pickard A, Regier D . The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian Valuation Study and Algorithm to Derive Cancer-Specific Utilities From the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy Pract. 2019; 4(1):2381468319842532. PMC: 6580722. DOI: 10.1177/2381468319842532. View

Franken M, de Hond A, Degeling K, Punt C, Koopman M, Uyl-de Groot C . Evaluation of the performance of algorithms mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D index in a metastatic colorectal cancer cost-effectiveness model. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020; 18(1):240. PMC: 7370458. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01481-2. View

King M, Costa D, Aaronson N, Brazier J, Cella D, Fayers P . QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2016; 25(3):625-36. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1217-y. View

Andrews G, Slade T . Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002; 25(6):494-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00310.x. View

Nerich V, Gamper E, Norman R, King M, Holzner B, Viney R . French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020; 19(2):191-202. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00598-1. View

Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K . Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51(11):1115-28. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00103-6. View

Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, Zalcberg J, Meropol N, Amir E . Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(10):933-80. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70141-3. View

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M . The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002; 21(2):271-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8. View

10.

M Versteegh M, Leunis A, Uyl-de Groot C, Stolk E . Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden?. Value Health. 2012; 15(3):504-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.003. View

11.

Mulhern B, Norman R, Street D, Viney R . One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 37(1):29-43. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6. View

12.

Lamers L, Stalmeier P, McDonnell J, Krabbe P, van Busschbach J . [Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005; 149(28):1574-8. View

13.

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

14.

King M, Viney R, Pickard A, Rowen D, Aaronson N, Brazier J . Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 36(2):225-238. PMC: 5805814. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5. View

15.

Drummond M, Aguiar-Ibanez R, Nixon J . Economic evaluation. Singapore Med J. 2006; 47(6):456-61. View

16.

Gamper E, King M, Norman R, Efficace F, Cottone F, Holzner B . EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Qual Life Res. 2020; 29(9):2485-2495. PMC: 7434806. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02536-z. View

17.

Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A . Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2011; 31(1):306-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004. View

18.

Gu Y, Norman R, Viney R . Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments--a QALY space model approach. Health Econ. 2014; 23(9):1098-114. DOI: 10.1002/hec.3066. View

19.

Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson N, Brazier J, Cella D, Costa D . Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2015; 25(3):637-49. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3. View

20.

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