Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 6/2015

01-06-2015

The potential for a generally applicable mapping model between QLQ-C30 and SF-6D in patients with different cancers: a comparison of regression-based methods

Auteur: Nick Kontodimopoulos

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To establish and compare generalized or “global” mapping relationships between QLQ-C30 and SF-6D, applicable across different cancer types.

Methods

Patients (N = 671) with breast, myeloma, colorectal, lymphoma, bone marrow, prostate, lung and gastroenteric cancer were randomly split into estimation (75 %) and validation (25 %) datasets. SF-6D was estimated from QLQ-C30 scores via ordinary least squares, generalized linear models and median (least-absolute deviations) regression approaches, and with Bayesian additive regression kernels. Predictive ability was assessed with root mean square error, mean absolute error and proportions of predictions with absolute errors >0.05 and >0.1, whereas explanatory power with adjusted R 2 or equivalent fit measures. Two external samples (breast and colorectal cancer) were used to further test the models.

Results

The QLQ-C30's global health item, the physical, emotional and social functioning scales, and the fatigue, pain and diarrhea symptom scales were significant predictors (p < 0.05 or better) in all models. Negligible deviations in models’ performance were observed. All models overpredicted utilities for patients in worst health and underpredicted them for those in better health (p < 0.01 or better). Regarding external validation, performance was better in the colorectal cancer than in the breast cancer sample.

Conclusions

This study has provided evidence to support the use of “global” mapping models to predict SF-6D utilities from QLQ-C30 in patients with different cancers. Testing with diverse patient samples is required to confirm the generalizability (or not) of mapping models across cancer conditions.
vorige artikel Defining novel health-related quality of life domains in lung transplantation: a qualitative analysis
volgende artikel Population norms for the EQ-5D index scores using Singapore preference weights
Literatuur
1.
2.
Chuang, L. H., & Whitehead, S. J. (2012). Mapping for economic evaluation. British Medical Bulletin, 101, 1–15.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernández Alava, M., Mukuria, C., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modeling and survey. Health Technology Assessment, 18, 1–224.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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. European Journal of Health Economics, 11, 215–225.PubMedCrossRef
5.
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, 66–89.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dakin, H. (2013). Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: An online database. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 151.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
Räsänen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynänen, O. P., & Roine, R. (2006). Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22, 235–241.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., & Hays, R. D. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 17, 13–35.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Kontodimopoulos, N., Aletras, V. H., Paliouras, D., & Niakas, D. (2009). Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D instruments. Value in Health, 12, 1151–1157.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Crott, R., & Briggs, A. (2010). Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences. European Journal of Health Economics, 11, 427–434.PubMedCrossRef
11.
McKenzie, L., & van der Pol, M. (2009). Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: The potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value in Health, 12, 167–171.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Wu, E. Q., Mulani, P., Farrell, M. H., & Sleep, D. (2007). Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQC30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value in Health, 10, 408–414.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Proskorovsky, I., Lewis, P., Williams, C. D., Jordan, K., Kyriakou, C., Ishak, J., et al. (2014). Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to EQ-5D in patients with multiple myeloma. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 35.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
Wong, C. K., Lam, C. L., Wan, Y. F., & Rowen, D. (2013). Predicting SF-6D from the European organization for treatment and research of cancer quality of life questionnaire scores in patients with colorectal cancer. Value in Health, 16, 373–384.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Wong, C. K., Lam, C. L., Rowen, D., McGhee, S. M., Ma, K. P., Law, W. L., et al. (2012). Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general or -colorectal to SF-6D in Chinese patients with colorectal neoplasm. Value in Health, 15, 495–503.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wong, C. K., Mulhern, B., Wan, Y. F., & Lam, C. L. (2014). Responsiveness was similar between direct and mapped SF-6D in colorectal cancer patients who declined. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 219–227.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Kim, S. H., Jo, M. W., Kim, H. J., & Ahn, J. H. (2012). Mapping EORTC-C30 onto EQ-5D for the assessment of cancer patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 151.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
18.
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, 271–292.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Pappa, E., Kontodimopoulos, N., & Niakas, D. (2005). Validating and norming of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1433–1438.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1959–1965.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Kontodimopoulos, N., & Niakas, D. (2008). A cost-utility analysis in renal replacement therapy based on patients’ expected remaining life years. Health Policy, 86, 85–96.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Michalopoulos, N. V., Theodoropoulos, G. E., Stamopoulos, P., Sergentanis, T. N., Memos, N., Tsamis, D., et al. (2013). A cost utility analysis of laparoscopic vs. open treatment of colorectal cancer in a public hospital of the Greek national health system. Journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology, 18, 86–97.
23.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Fayer, P. L., & EORTC quality of life study group. (1998). EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual (2nd ed.). Brussels, Belgium: EORTC.
25.
Mystakidou, K., Tsilika, E., Parpa, E., Kalaidopoulou, O., Smyrniotis, V., & Vlahos, L. (2001). The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) in terminally ill cancer patients under palliative care: Validity and reliability in a Hellenic sample. International Journal of Cancer, 94, 135–139.CrossRef
26.
Kontodimopoulos, N., Ntinoulis, K., & Niakas, D. (2011). Validity of the Greek EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 for measuring health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer Care, 20, 354–361.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kontodimopoulos, N., Samartzis, A., Papadopoulos, A. A., & Niakas, D. (2012). Reliability and validity of the Greek QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 for measuring quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma. Scientific World Journal, 2012, 842867.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
28.
Georgakopoulos, A., Kontodimopoulos, N., Chatziioannou, S., & Niakas, D. (2013). EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-Lym for the assessment of health-related quality of life of newly diagnosed lymphoma patients undergoing chemotherapy. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 17, 849–855.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Dakin, H., Gray, A., & Murray, D. (2013). Mapping analyses to estimate EQ-5D utilities and responses based on Oxford Knee Score. Quality of Life Research, 22, 683–694.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
Austin, P. C., Tu, J. V., Daly, P. A., & Alter, D. A. (2005). The use of quantile regression in health care research: A case study examining gender differences in the timeliness of thrombolytic therapy. Statistics in Medicine, 24, 791–816.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Liang, F., Liao, M., Mao, K., Mukherjee, S., & West, M. (2007). Non-parametric Bayesian kernel models. Discussion paper 2007–10, Duke University ISDS, Durham, NC.
32.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1523–1532.PubMedCrossRef
33.
StataCorp. (2009). Stata: Release 11. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
34.
35.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2008). EORTC QLQ-C30 reference values. Brussels, Belgium: EORTC.
36.
Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Chadjiapostolou, Z., Arvanitaki, E., Papadopoulos, A. A., & Niakas, D. (2012). Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications. European Journal of Health Economics, 13, 111–120.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kontodimopoulos, N., Argiriou, M., Theakos, N., & Niakas, D. (2011). The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure. European Journal of Health Economics, 12, 383–391.
38.
Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A. A., Tountas, Y., & Niakas, D. (2009). Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Quality of Life Research, 18, 87–97.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Chan, K.K., Willan, A.R., Gupta, M., Pullenayegum, E. (2014). Underestimation of uncertainties in health utilities derived from mapping algorithms involving health-related quality-of-life measures: Statistical explanations and potential remedies. Medical Decision Making, Jan 9. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.​1177/​0272989X13517750​.
40.
Teckle, P., Peacock, S., van der Hoek, K., Chia, S., Melosky, B., & Gelmon, K. (2011). Cross-walking cancer-specific instruments to the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Value in Health, 14, A11.CrossRef
41.
Teckle, P., McTaggart-Cowan, H., Van der Hoek, K., Chia, S., Melosky, B., Gelmon, K., et al. (2013). Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 203.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
Barton, G. R., Sach, T. H., Jenkinson, C., Avery, A. J., Doherty, M., & Muir, K. R. (2008). Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
43.
Versteegh, M. M., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., & Stolk, E. A. (2010). Mapping onto EQ-5D for patients in poor health. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 141.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
44.
Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2009). Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: How reliable is the relationship? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
45.
Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 597–612.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kharroubi, S. A., & McCabe, C. (2008). Modeling HUI 2 Health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Medical Decision Making, 28, 875–887.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Kharroubi, S. A., O’Hagan, A., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: A nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), 54, 879–895.CrossRef
48.
Burden, F., & Winkler, D. (2008). Bayesian regularization of neural networks. Methods in Molecular Biology, 458, 25–44.PubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
The potential for a generally applicable mapping model between QLQ-C30 and SF-6D in patients with different cancers: a comparison of regression-based methods
Auteur
Nick Kontodimopoulos
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0857-7

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2015

Quality of Life Research 6/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Identifying key domains of health-related quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: interviews with healthcare professionals

OriginalPaper

The effects of response option order and question order on self-rated health

OriginalPaper

Predictors of health-related quality of life perceived by end-stage renal disease patients under online hemodiafiltration

OriginalPaper

Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients

OriginalPaper

Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the EQ-5D-5L items for English-speaking Asians in Singapore

OriginalPaper

Anxiety and worry when coping with cancer treatment: agreement between patient and proxy responses