Assessing the Reliability of a Novel Cancer-specific Multi-attribute Utility Instrument (FACT-8D) and Comparing Its Validity to EQ-5D-5L in Colorectal Cancer Patients

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2024 Sep 3

PMID 39225938

Authors

Yiyin Cao

Huan Zhang

Nan Luo

Haofei Li

Ling Jie Cheng

Weidong Huang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the test-retest reliability of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - 8 Dimension (FACT-8D) for the first time, and to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the distribution properties and validity between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Patients.

Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study on Chinese CRC patients, employing Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, and FACT-G during follow-up (2-7 days from baseline). Utility scores for FACT-8D were derived from all available value sets (Australia, Canada and USA), while EQ-5D-5L scores were obtained from corresponding value sets for various countries. We assessed convergent validity using pairwise polychoric correlations between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L; known-groups validity by discriminating participants' clinical characteristics, and effect size (ES) was tested; test-retest reliability for FACT-8D using kappa and weighted Kappa for choice consistency, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method for utility consistency.

Results: Among the 287 patients with CRC at baseline, 131 were included in the retest analysis. The utility scores of FACT-8D were highly positively correlated with EQ-5D-5L across various country value sets (r = 0.65-0.77), and most of the dimensions of FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L were positively correlated. EQ-5D-5L failed to discriminate known-groups in cancer stage across all value sets, whereas both were significant in FACT-8D (ES = 0.35-0.48, ES = 0.38-0.52). FACT-8D showed good test-retest reliability (Cohen's weighted Kappa = 0.494-0.722, ICC = 0.748-0.786).

Conclusion: The FACT-8D can be used as a valid and reliable instrument for clinical evaluation of patients with CRC, outperforming EQ-5D-5L in differentiating clinical subgroups and showing promise for cancer practice and research.

References

Chen S, Cao Z, Prettner K, Kuhn M, Yang J, Jiao L . Estimates and Projections of the Global Economic Cost of 29 Cancers in 204 Countries and Territories From 2020 to 2050. JAMA Oncol. 2023; 9(4):465-472. PMC: 9951101. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.7826. View

Van Cutsem E, Borras J, Castells A, Ciardiello F, Ducreux M, Haq A . Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer: where do we go from here?. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49(11):2476-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.03.026. View

Farkkila N, Torvinen S, Sintonen H, Saarto T, Jarvinen H, Hanninen J . Costs of colorectal cancer in different states of the disease. Acta Oncol. 2014; 54(4):454-62. DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2014.985797. View

Heintz E, Gerber-Grote A, Ghabri S, Hamers F, Rupel V, Slabe-Erker R . Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015; 34(1):59-76. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0328-1. View

Bracco A, Krol M . Economic evaluations in European reimbursement submission guidelines: current status and comparisons. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013; 13(5):579-95. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2013.837766. View

Mauskopf J, Walter J, Birt J, Bowman L, Copley-Merriman C, Drummond M . Differences among formulary submission guidelines: implications for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011; 27(3):261-70. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000274. View

Cher B, Goh S, Aziz M, Wong G, Ng Chee Hui R, Ong B . Cost-utility analysis of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Singapore. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2023; 24(2):217-225. DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2291155. View

Sahakyan Y, Li Q, Alibhai S, Puts M, Yeretzian S, Anwar M . Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023; 42(1):59-69. PMC: 10730076. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00930. View

Fashami F, Levine M, Xie F, Blackhouse G, Tarride J . Olaparib versus Placebo in Maintenance Treatment of Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis from the Canadian Public Payer's Perspective. Curr Oncol. 2023; 30(5):4688-4699. PMC: 10217075. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30050354. View

10.

Poulsen Nautrup B . [Pharmacoeconomics in uro-oncology: the concept of QALYs]. Urologe A. 2011; 50(12):1573-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-011-2731-3. View

11.

Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W . Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020; 21(8):1245-1257. PMC: 7561556. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8. View

12.

Ramos-Goni J, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach J, Stolk E . Quality Control Process for EQ-5D-5L Valuation Studies. Value Health. 2017; 20(3):466-473. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012. View

13.

Rowen D, Azzabi Zouraq I, Chevrou-Severac H, van Hout B . International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35(Suppl 1):11-19. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y. View

14.

Carroll L, Benson G, Lambert J, Benmedjahed K, Zak M, Lee X . Real-world utilities and health-related quality-of-life data in hemophilia patients in France and the United Kingdom. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019; 13:941-957. PMC: 6585419. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S202773. View

15.

Zeng X, Sui M, Liu B, Yang H, Liu R, Tan R . Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in Six Commonly Diagnosed Cancers. Patient. 2020; 14(2):209-222. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00466-z. View

16.

Garau M, Shah K, Mason A, Wang Q, Towse A, Drummond M . Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011; 29(8):673-85. DOI: 10.2165/11588250-000000000-00000. View

17.

Marriott E, Van Hazel G, Gibbs P, Hatswell A . Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L in patients with colorectal cancer. J Med Econ. 2016; 20(2):193-199. DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1241788. View

18.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi Zouraq I . The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35(Suppl 1):33-41. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0546-9. View

19.

Janssen M, Pickard A, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L . Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(7):1717-27. PMC: 3764313. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. View

20.

Chen G, Olsen J . Filling the psycho-social gap in the EQ-5D: the empirical support for four bolt-on dimensions. Qual Life Res. 2020; 29(11):3119-3129. PMC: 7591404. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02576-5. View