Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

26-12-2023

Development of algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D-5L from the FACT-L in patients with lung cancer: a mapping study

Auteurs: Longlin Jiang, Hong Zhou, Qing Yang, Xi Luo, Deyu Huang

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2024

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to develop a mapping algorithm to evaluate the EQ-5D-5L according to the FACT-L when the EQ-5D-5L is not available.

Methods

EQ-5D-5L and FACT-L data were collected from patients with lung cancer in Departments of Thoracic Surgery, Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital. We used the ordinary least squares model (OLS), Tobit model (Tobit), two-part model (TPM), beta mixture regression (BM), and censored least absolute deviation model (CLAD) to map the results of the FACT-L according to EQ-5D-5L scores. To establish these models, the total score, dimension scores, squared items, and interaction items were introduced. Performance metrics including Adjusted R², root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were used to select the optimized model.

Results

The model with the best mapping performance was the BM model (BETAMIX4) with the PWB (physical well-being) dimension, FWB (functional well-being) dimension, the squared term of the PWB dimension, and the squared term of the FWB dimension as covariates. The final prediction metrics were Adjusted R² = 0.695, RMSE = 0.206, and MAE = 0.109. Fivefold cross-validation (CV) results also demonstrated that the BM model had the best mapping power.

Conclusions

This study developed an optimized mapping algorithm to predict the utility index from the FACT-L to the EQ-5D-5L, which provides an effective alternative reference for EQ-5D-5L estimation when the preference-based health utility values were unavailable.

vorige artikel Racial and ethnic disparities in self-reported general and mental health status among colorectal cancer survivors: impact of sociodemographic factors and implications for mortality—a SEER-CAHPS study

volgende artikel Mapping IWQOL-Lite onto EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among overweight and obese population in China

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., & Bray, F. (2021). Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 71(3), 209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossRef

Xia, C., Dong, X., Li, H., Cao, M., Sun, D., He, S., Yang, F., Yan, X., Zhang, S., Li, N., & Chen, W. (2022). Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants. Chinese medical journal, 135(5), 584–590. https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000002108CrossRef

Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. (4th ed.) Oxford University Press.

Goodwin, E., & Green, C. (2016). A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health. Applied health economics and health policy, 14(2), 161–183. CrossRefPubMed

Weldring, T., & Smith, S. M. (2013). Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health services insights, 6, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.4137/hsi.S11093CrossRef

Longworth, L., & Rowen, D. (2013). Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value in Health, 16(1), 202–210.CrossRefPubMed

Wailoo, A. J., Hernandez-Alava, M., Manca, A., Mejia, A., Ray, J., Crawford, B., Botteman, M., & Busschbach, J. (2017). Mapping to Estimate Health-State Utility from Non-Preference-Based Outcome Measures: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report. Value in Health, 20(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006CrossRefPubMed

Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. British Medical Bulletin, 96, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033CrossRefPubMed

Khan, I., Morris, S., Pashayan, N., Matata, B., Bashir, Z., & Maguirre, J. (2016). Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0455-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Cella, D. F., Bonomi, A. E., Lloyd, S. R., Tulsky, D. S., Kaplan, E., & Bonomi, P. (1995). Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. Lung Cancer, 12(3), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5002(95)00450-fCrossRefPubMed

11.

Dakin, H., Abel, L., Burns, R., & Yang, Y. (2018). Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database and application of the MAPS statement. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0857-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Kind, P., & Macran, S. (2005). Eliciting social preference weights for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung health states. PharmacoEconomics, 23(11), 1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523110-00006CrossRefPubMed

13.

Pickard, A. S., Ray, S., Ganguli, A., & Cella, D. (2012). Comparison of FACT- and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer. Value in health: The journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 15(2), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.029CrossRefPubMed

14.

Xi-Jing, F. U., Liang, M. H., Sun, M., Gao, P., Kong, C., & Zhu, W. T. (2014). Analysis on applying mapping method in measuring health utility values. Chinese Health Economics, 33(10), 32–35.

15.

Zhu, J., Yan, X. X., Liu, C. C., Wang, H., Wang, L., Cao, S. M., Liao, X. Z., Xi, Y. F., Ji, Y., Lei, L., Xiao, H. F., Guan, H. J., Wei, W. Q., Dai, M., Chen, W., & Shi, J. F. (2021). Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 841–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02636-wCrossRefPubMed

16.

Lamu, A. N., Chen, G., Gamst-Klaussen, T., & Olsen, J. A. (2018). Do country-specific preference weights matter in the choice of mapping algorithms? The case of mapping the Diabetes-39 onto eight country-specific EQ-5D-5L value sets. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1801–1814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1840-5CrossRefPubMed

17.

Petrou, S., Rivero-Arias, O., Dakin, H., Longworth, L., Oppe, M., Froud, R., & Gray, A. (2015). The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration. PharmacoEconomics, 33(10), 993–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0312-9CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wan, C., Zhang, C., Cai, L., Tu, X., Feng, C., Luo, J., & Zhang, X. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the FACT-L for measuring quality of life in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 56(3), 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.01.004CrossRefPubMed

19.

Chang, W. P., Lin, Y. K., & Lin, C. C. (2019). Psychometric evaluation of the Taiwanese version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy: a questionnaire for patients with lung cancer. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 31(7), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy201CrossRef

20.

Rabin, R., Oemar, M., & Oppe, M. (2011). EQ-5D-5L User Guide—Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument.

21.

Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016CrossRefPubMed

22.

Gansterer, W. N., Niederbrucker, G., Straková, H., & Schulze Grotthoff, S. (2013). Scalable and fault tolerant orthogonalization based on randomized distributed data aggregation. Journal of Computational Science, 4(6), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2013.01.006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Stolk, E., Ludwig, K., Rand, K., van Hout, B., & Ramos-Goñi, J. M. (2019). Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol. Value in Health, 22(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010CrossRefPubMed

24.

Meregaglia, M., Whittal, A., Nicod, E., & Drummond, M. (2020). ‘Mapping’ Health State Utility Values from Non-preference-Based Measures: A Systematic Literature Review in Rare Diseases. PharmacoEconomics, 38(6), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00897-4CrossRefPubMed

25.

Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Harnan, S., Rawdin, A., Wong, R., Ara, R., & Brazier, J. (2019). 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. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 17(3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00467-6CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kent, S., Gray, A., Schlackow, I., Jenkinson, C., & McIntosh, E. (2015). Mapping from the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire PDQ-39 to the Generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L: The Value of Mixture Models. Medical Decision Making, 35(7), 902–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x15584921CrossRefPubMed

27.

Powell, J. (1984). Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. Journal of Econometrics, 25(3), 303–325.MathSciNetCrossRef

28.

Dow, W. H., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Choosing between and interpreting the Heckit and two-part models for corner solutions. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 4(1), 5–18.CrossRef

29.

Dziak, J. J., & Henry, K. L. (2017). Two-part predictors in regression models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(5), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1333404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Badia, X., Trainer, P., Biermasz, N. R., Tiemensma, J., Carreño, A., Roset, M., Forsythe, A., & Webb, S. M. (2018). Mapping AcroQoL scores to EQ-5D to obtain utility values for patients with acromegaly. Journal of Medical Economics, 21(4), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1419960CrossRefPubMed

31.

Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0168-zCrossRef

32.

Gray, L. A., & Alava, M. H. (2018). A Command for Fitting Mixture Regression Models for Bounded Dependent Variables Using the Beta Distribution. The Stata Journal, 18(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801800105CrossRef

33.

Yang, Q., Yu, X. X., Zhang, W., & Li, H. (2019). Mapping function from FACT-B to EQ-5D-5 L using multiple modelling approaches: data from breast cancer patients in China. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1224-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Wong, C. K. H., Cheung, P. W. H., Samartzis, D., Luk, K. D., Cheung, K. M. C., Lam, C. L. K., & Cheung, J. P. Y. (2017). Mapping the SRS-22r questionnaire onto the EQ-5D-5L utility score in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. PloS One, 12(4), e0175847. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175847CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Bilbao, A., Martín-Fernández, J., García-Pérez, L., Arenaza, J. C., Ariza-Cardiel, G., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., & Ansola, L. (2020). Mapping WOMAC onto the EQ-5D-5L utility index in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Value in Health, 23(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.2755CrossRefPubMed

36.

Cheung, Y. B., Luo, N., Ng, R., & Lee, C. F. (2014). Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0180-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

McClure, N. S., Sayah, F. A., Xie, F., Luo, N., & Johnson, J. A. (2017). Instrument-defined estimates of the minimally important difference for EQ-5D-5L index scores. Value in Health, 20(4), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.015CrossRefPubMed

38.

Yang, F., Devlin, N., & Luo, N. (2019). Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: In the case of dialysis treatments. European Journal of Health Economics, 20(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0987-xCrossRef

39.

Hagiwara, Y., Kawahara, T., & Shiroiwa, T. (2020). What is a valid mapping algorithm in cost-utility analyses? A response from a missing data perspective. Value in Health, 23(9), 1218–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.020CrossRefPubMed

40.

Gray, L. A., Hernández Alava, M., & Wailoo, A. J. (2018). Development of methods for the mapping of utilities using mixture models: Mapping the AQLQ-S to the EQ-5D-5L and the HUI3 in patients with asthma. Value in Health, 21(6), 748–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Ali, F. M., Kay, R., Finlay, A. Y., Piguet, V., Kupfer, J., Dalgard, F., & Salek, M. S. (2017). Mapping of the DLQI scores to EQ-5D utility values using ordinal logistic regression. Quality of Life Research, 26(11), 3025–3034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1607-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Ameri, H., Yousefi, M., Yaseri, M., Nahvijou, A., Arab, M., & Akbari Sari, A. (2019). Mapping the cancer-specific QLQ-C30 onto the generic EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in colorectal cancer patients. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1517046CrossRefPubMed

43.

Longworth, L., & Rowen, D. (2013). Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value in Health, 16(1), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.010CrossRefPubMed

44.

Chen, P., Wan, G., & Zhu, B. (2021). Incidence and risk factors of symptomatic thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheter in patients with lung cancer. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(3), 1284–1292. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14666CrossRefPubMed

45.

Sauerland, S., Weiner, S., Dolezalova, K., Angrisani, L., Noguera, C. M., García-Caballero, M., Rupprecht, F., & Immenroth, M. (2009). Mapping utility scores from a disease-specific quality-of-life measure in bariatric surgery patients. Value in Health, 12(2), 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00442.xCrossRefPubMed

Titel: Development of algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D-5L from the FACT-L in patients with lung cancer: a mapping study
Auteurs: Longlin Jiang
Hong Zhou
Qing Yang
Xi Luo
Deyu Huang
Publicatiedatum: 26-12-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03567-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2024

Reporting of health-related quality of life in emergency laparotomy trials: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®)-29 and PROMIS global physical and mental health scores

Physical and occupational therapists' perceptions of sustainability of a knowledge translation intervention to improve the use of outcome measures in inpatient rehabilitation: a qualitative study

A random item effects generalized partial credit model with a multiple imputation-based scoring procedure

Measurement equivalence of the English and French versions of the self-efficacy to manage chronic disease scale: a Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) study

Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system