Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

08-11-2023

Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ H&N35 to the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D for papillary thyroid carcinoma

Auteurs: Deyu Huang, Dingfen Zeng, Yuan Tang, Longlin Jiang, Qing Yang

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 2/2024

Abstract

Purpose

Empirical evidence for the EORTC QLQ C30 scale in thyroid cancer mapping algorithms has not been found in China, which limits the cost-utility analysis of patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) population. We developed mapping algorithms that use the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ H&N35 to predict EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D health utility scores for PTC patients.

Methods

Data from 1050 Chinese PTC patients who completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ H&N35, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D instruments were collected. Direct mapping (OLS, Tobit, Betamix) and indirect mapping functions (Order Probit) were used to estimate algorithms. The goodness-of-fit of mapping performance was assessed by MAE, RMSE, AIC, BIC, AE, and ICC. A fivefold cross-validation and random sample validation approach were used to test the stability of the models.

Results

The mean EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores were 0.8704 and 0.6368, respectively. We recommend the Betamix model for the EQ-5D-5L (MAE = 0.0363, RMSE = 0.0505, AIC = -3458.73, BIC = -3096.91, AE > 0.05(%) = 48.38, AE > 0.1(%) = 8.67, ICC = 0.8288 for the full sample dataset) and the Betamix model for the SF-6D (MAE = 0.0328, RMSE = 0.0417, AIC = -2788.91, BIC = -2605.51, AE > 0.05(%) = 42.76, AE > 0.1(%) = 3.62, ICC = 0.8657 for the full sample dataset), with EORTC QLQ-C30 all items, QLQ H&N35 all items, age and gender as the predicted variables showing the best performance.

Conclusion

In the absence of preference-based quality of life tools, the mapping algorithms reported here are effective alternative for predicting the health utility of PTC patients, contributing to the cost-utility analysis studies.

vorige artikel Mood assessments of family caregivers of patients with severe brain injury in China

volgende artikel Home care and quality of life among community-dwelling dependent older adults in Israel: a multiple mediator model

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2020). Cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 70(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590CrossRefPubMed

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.21660CrossRefPubMed

Zheng, R., Zhang, S., Zeng, H., Wang, S., Sun, K., Chen, R., Li, L., Wei, W., & He, J. (2022). Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2016. Journal of the National Cancer Center, 2(1), 1–9.ADSCrossRef

Halmai, L. A., Neilson, A. R., & Kilonzo, M. (2020). Economic evaluation of interventions for the treatment of asthma in children: A systematic review. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 31(2), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.13129CrossRefPubMed

Earle, C. C., Chapman, R. H., Baker, C. S., Bell, C. M., Stone, P. W., Sandberg, E. A., & Neumann, P. J. (2000). Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18(18), 3302–3317. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.18.3302CrossRefPubMed

Basu, A. (2020). A welfare-theoretic model consistent with the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and its implications. Journal of Health Economics, 70, 102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102287CrossRefPubMed

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 Health, 20(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006CrossRefPubMed

Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14543107CrossRefPubMed

Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2018). Testing alternative regression models to predict utilities: Mapping the QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 27(11), 2823–2839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1981-6CrossRefPubMed

10.

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-zCrossRefPubMed

11.

Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28(1), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07309642CrossRefPubMed

12.

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

13.

Gray, L. A., Wailoo, A. J., & Hernandez Alava, M. (2018). Mapping the FACT-B instrument to EQ-5D-3L in patients with breast cancer using adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models versus response mapping. Value Health, 21(12), 1399–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.06.006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

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 Health, 21(6), 748–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Houten, R., Fleeman, N., Kotas, E., Boland, A., Lambe, T., & Duarte, R. (2021). A systematic review of health state utility values for thyroid cancer. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 675–702.CrossRefPubMed

16.

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 & Outcomes Research, 19(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1517046CrossRef

17.

Liu, T., Li, S., Wang, M., Sun, Q., & Chen, G. (2020). Mapping the Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-BR53 Onto the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores. Patient, 13(5), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00422-xCrossRefPubMed

18.

Wan, C., Meng, Q., Yang, Z., Tu, X., Feng, C., Tang, X., & Zhang, C. (2008). Validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-C30 from the measurements of five types of inpatients with cancer. Annals of Oncology, 19(12), 2053–2060. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn417CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Yang, Z., Meng, Q., Luo, J., Lu, Q., Li, X., Li, G., & Wan, C. (2012). Development and validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 for patients with head and neck cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(7), 1555–1564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1247-0CrossRefPubMed

20.

Meregaglia, M., & Cairns, J. (2017). A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 174. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0748-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Fayers, P., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., & Sullivan, M. (1995). EORTC QLQ–C30 scoringmanual. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

22.

Sherman, A. C., Simonton, S., Adams, D. C., Vural, E., Owens, B., & Hanna, E. (2000). Assessing quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: Cross-validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Head and Neck module (QLQ-H&N35). Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 126(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.126.4.459CrossRef

23.

Group EQoLS. (2001). Brussels:EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

24.

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

25.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Lam, C. L., Brazier, J., & McGhee, S. M. (2008). Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health, 11(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00233.xCrossRefPubMed

27.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8CrossRefPubMed

28.

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

29.

Swinscow, T. D. V., & Campbell, M. J. (2002). London: Statistics at square one. (pp. 111–25). Bmj.

30.

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

31.

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

32.

Carroll, L., Benson, G., Lambert, J., Benmedjahed, K., Zak, M., & Lee, X. Y. (2019). Real-world utilities and health-related quality-of-life data in hemophilia patients in France and the United Kingdom. Patient Preference and Adherence, 13, 941–957. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S202773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Austin, P. C., Escobar, M., & Kopec, J. A. (2000). The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008938326604CrossRefPubMed

34.

Whitehurst, D. G., & Bryan, S. (2011). Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value in Health, 14(4), 531–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002CrossRefPubMed

35.

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/10.1177/1536867X180180015CrossRef

36.

Stewart, M. B. (2004). Semi-nonparametric estimation of extended ordered probit models. The Stata Journal, 4(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0100400102CrossRef

37.

Gray, L. A., Hernandez Alava, M., & Wailoo, A. J. (2021). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L in patients with breast cancer. BMC Cancer, 21(1), 1237. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08964-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Hernández Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2014). A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes. Medical Decision Making, 34(7), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13500720CrossRefPubMed

39.

Abdin, E., Chong, S. A., Seow, E., Tan, K. B., & Subramaniam, M. (2021). Mapping the PHQ-8 to EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF6D in patients with depression. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 451. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03463-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Yang, F., Wong, C. K. H., Luo, N., Piercy, J., Moon, R., & Jackson, J. (2019). Mapping the kidney disease quality of life 36-item short form survey (KDQOL-36) to the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in patients undergoing dialysis. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(8), 1195–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01088-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Noel, C. W., Stephens, R. F., Su, J. S., Xu, W., Krahn, M., Monteiro, E., Goldstein, D. P., Giuliani, M., Hansen, A. R., & de Almeida, J. R. (2020). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35, onto EQ-5D-5L and HUI-3 indices in patients with head and neck cancer. Head & Neck, 42(9), 2277–2286. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26181CrossRef

42.

Beck, A. C. C., Kieffer, J. M., Retèl, V. P., van Overveld, L. F. J., Takes, R. P., van den Brekel, M. W. M., van Harten, W. H., & Stuiver, M. M. (2019). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 to the EQ-5D for head and neck cancer: Can disease-specific utilities be obtained? PLoS ONE, 14(12), e0226077. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226077CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Woodcock, F., Doble, B., CANCER 2015 Consortium. (2018). Mapping the EORTC-QLQ-C30 to the EQ-5D-3L: An assessment of existing and newly developed algorithms. Medical Decision Making, 38(8), 954–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X18797588CrossRefPubMed

44.

Stephens, R. F., Noel, C. W., Su, J. S., Xu, W., Krahn, M., Monteiro, E., Goldstein, D. P., Giuliani, M., Hansen, A. R., & de Almeida, J. R. (2020). Mapping the University of Washington Quality of life questionnaire onto EQ-5D and HUI-3 indices in patients with head and neck cancer. Head & Neck, 42(3), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26031CrossRef

45.

Thankappan, K., Patel, T., Ajithkumar, K. K., Balasubramanian, D., Raj, M., Subramanian, S., & Iyer, S. (2022). Mapping of head and neck cancer patient concerns inventory scores on to Euroqol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) health utility scores. The European Journal of Health Economics, 23(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01369-yCrossRefPubMed

46.

Franken, M. D., de Hond, A., Degeling, K., Punt, C. J. A., Koopman, M., Uyl-de Groot, C. A., Versteegh, M. M., & van Oijen, M. G. H. (2020). Evaluation of the performance of algorithms mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D index in a metastatic colorectal cancer cost-effectiveness model. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01481-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Hagiwara, Y., Shiroiwa, T., Taira, N., Kawahara, T., Konomura, K., Noto, S., Fukuda, T., & Shimozuma, K. (2020). Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G onto EQ-5D-5L index for patients with cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01611-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

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(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0455-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

McLeod, D. S., Sawka, A. M., & Cooper, D. S. (2013). Controversies in primary treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer. Lancet, 381(9871), 1046–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62205-3CrossRefPubMed

50.

Abdin, E., Chong, S. A., Seow, E., Verma, S., Tan, K. B., & Subramaniam, M. (2019). Mapping the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores to EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores in patients with schizophrenia. Quality of Life Research, 28(1), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2037-7CrossRefPubMed

51.

Martín-Fernández, J., Morey-Montalvo, M., Tomás-García, N., Martín-Ramos, E., Muñoz-García, J. C., Polentinos-Castro, E., Rodríguez-Martínez, G., Arenaza, J. C., García-Pérez, L., Magdalena-Armas, L., & Bilbao, A. (2020). Mapping analysis to predict EQ-5D-5 L utility values based on the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaires in the Spanish population suffering from lower limb osteoarthritis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01435-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures? Value Health, 17(2), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Klapproth, C. P., van Bebber, J., Sidey-Gibbons, C. J., Valderas, J. M., Leplege, A., Rose, M., & Fischer, F. (2020). Predicting EQ-5D-5L crosswalk from the PROMIS-29 profile for the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 389. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01629-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Su, J., Liu, T., Li, S., Zhao, Y., & Kuang, Y. (2020). A mapping study in mainland China: Predicting EQ-5D-5L utility scores from the psoriasis disability index. Journal of Medical Economics, 23(7), 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2020.1748636CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ H&N35 to the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D for papillary thyroid carcinoma
Auteurs: Deyu Huang
Dingfen Zeng
Yuan Tang
Longlin Jiang
Qing Yang
Publicatiedatum: 08-11-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03540-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2024

A leaky gut contributes to reduced sarcopenia-related quality of life (SarQoL) in geriatric older adults

Quality of life in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and osteopenia: associations with bone microarchitecture and nutritional status

Surgical prioritization based on decision model outcomes is not sensitive to differences between the health-related quality of life values estimates of physicians and citizens

Health-related quality of life after hip fracture: effects of a 12-month home-based exercise intervention—secondary analyses of an RCT

Quality of life of the Canadian population using the VR-12: population norms for health utility values, summary component scores and domain scores

The effect of depressive symptoms on quality of life and its different facets in the oldest age population: evidence from the AgeQualiDe prospective cohort study