Internal Responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in Dutch Breast Cancer Patients During the First Year Post-Surgery: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Cancers (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Oncology

Date 2024 Jun 19

PMID 38893073

Authors

Noelle J M C Vrancken Peeters

Janine A van Til

Anouk S Huberts

Sabine Siesling

Olga Husson

Linetta B Koppert

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) are commonly used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for breast cancer. This study assesses and compares the internal responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in Dutch breast cancer patients during the first year post-surgery. Women diagnosed with breast cancer who completed the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 pre-operatively (T0), 6 months (T6), and 12 months post-surgery (T12) were included. Mean differences of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 between baseline and 6 months (delta 1) and between baseline and 12 months post-surgery (delta 2) were calculated and compared against the respective minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 0.08 and 5. Internal responsiveness was assessed using effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) for both deltas. In total, 333 breast cancer patients were included. Delta 1 and delta 2 for the EQ-5D-5L index and most scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 were below the MCID. The internal responsiveness for both PROMs was small (ES and SRM < 0.5), with greater internal responsiveness for delta 1 compared to delta 2. The EQ-5D-5L index showed greater internal responsiveness than the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Quality of Life scale and summary score. These findings are valuable for the interpretation of both PROMs in Dutch breast cancer research and clinical care.

References

Weldring T, Smith S . Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2014; 6:61-8. PMC: 4089835. DOI: 10.4137/HSI.S11093. View

Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras V, Paliouras D, Niakas D . Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health. 2009; 12(8):1151-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00569.x. View

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

de Ligt K, Heins M, Verloop J, Ezendam N, Smorenburg C, Korevaar J . The impact of health symptoms on health-related quality of life in early-stage breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 178(3):703-711. PMC: 6817812. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05433-3. View

King M, Kenny P, Shiell A, Hall J, Boyages J . Quality of life three months and one year after first treatment for early stage breast cancer: influence of treatment and patient characteristics. Qual Life Res. 2001; 9(7):789-800. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008936830764. View

Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, Warr D, Kaizer L, Latreille J . Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual Life Res. 1994; 3(5):353-64. DOI: 10.1007/BF00451727. View

Henry E, Barry L, Hobbins A, McClure N, ONeill C . Estimation of an Instrument-Defined Minimally Important Difference in EQ-5D-5L Index Scores Based on Scoring Algorithms Derived Using the EQ-VT Version 2 Valuation Protocols. Value Health. 2020; 23(7):936-944. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.003. View

Marks M, Grobet C, Audige L . Validity, responsiveness and minimal important change of the EQ-5D-5L in patients after rotator cuff repair, shoulder arthroplasty or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty. Qual Life Res. 2021; 30(10):2973-2982. PMC: 8481200. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-02849-7. View

Beaton D, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C . Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(1):79-93. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00296-x. View

10.

Rundgren J, Enocson A, Navarro C, Bergstrom G . Responsiveness of EQ-5D in Patients With a Distal Radius Fracture. Hand (N Y). 2017; 13(5):572-580. PMC: 6109904. DOI: 10.1177/1558944717725378. View

11.

Short H, Al Sayah F, Churchill K, Keogh E, Warner L, Ohinmaa A . The use of EQ-5D-5L as a patient-reported outcome measure in evaluating community rehabilitation services in Alberta, Canada. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21(1):125. PMC: 10657124. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02207-w. View

12.

Kim S, Jo M, Kim H, Ahn J . Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D for the assessment of cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10:151. PMC: 3542092. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-151. View

13.

Ghoncheh M, Pournamdar Z, Salehiniya H . Incidence and Mortality and Epidemiology of Breast Cancer in the World. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016; 17(S3):43-6. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2016.17.s3.43. View

14.

Hinz A, Schulte T, Rassler J, Zenger M, Geue K . Temporal stability of quality of life assessments in cancer patients. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):5191. PMC: 7933346. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84681-0. View

15.

Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J . Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16(1):139-44. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139. View

16.

Heins M, de Ligt K, Verloop J, Siesling S, Korevaar J . Adverse health effects after breast cancer up to 14 years after diagnosis. Breast. 2021; 61:22-28. PMC: 8661054. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.12.001. View

17.

Deyo R, Centor R . Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39(11):897-906. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-x. View

18.

Musoro J, Coens C, Sprangers M, Brandberg Y, Groenvold M, Flechtner H . Minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 change scores over time: A synthesis across 21 clinical trials involving nine different cancer types. Eur J Cancer. 2023; 188:171-182. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.027. View

19.

Musoro J, Coens C, Fiteni F, Katarzyna P, Cardoso F, Russell N . Minimally Important Differences for Interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 Scores in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020; 3(3):pkz037. PMC: 7050000. DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkz037. View

20.

Cocks K, King M, Velikova G, Martyn St-James M, Fayers P, Brown J . Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 29(1):89-96. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0107. View