Author
Listed:
- Micha J. Pilz
(University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University Innsbruck
Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology)
- Simon Seyringer
(Medical University of Innsbruck)
- Lára R. Hallsson
(Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology)
- Andrew Bottomley
(European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer)
- Femke Jansen
(Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
- Madeleine T. King
(University of Sydney)
- Richard Norman
(Curtin University)
- Marianne J. Rutten
(Amsterdam UMC)
- Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw
(Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Amsterdam Public Health, Mental Health)
- Peter D. Siersema
(Radboud University Medical Center
Erasmus MC/University Medical Center)
- Eva Maria Gamper
(University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University Innsbruck
Medical University of Innsbruck)
Abstract
Background Cost-utility analysis typically relies on preference-based measures (PBMs). While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs can capture aspects relevant for certain patient populations. Here the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific PBM based on the QLQ-C30, is validated using Dutch trial data with the EQ-5D-3L as a generic comparator measure. Methods We retrospectively analysed data from four Dutch randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comprising the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L. Respective Dutch value sets were applied. Correlations between the instruments were calculated for domains and index scores. Bland–Altman plots and intra-class correlations (ICC) displayed agreement between the measures. Independent and paired t-tests, effect sizes and relative validity indices were used to determine the instruments’ performance in detecting clinically known-group differences and health changes over time. Results We analysed data from 602 cancer patients from four different trials. In overall, the EORTC QLU-C10D showed good relative validity with the EQ-5D-3L as a comparator (correlations of index scores r = 0.53–0.75, ICCs 0.686–0.808, conceptually similar domains showed higher correlations than dissimilar domains). Most importantly, it detected 63% of expected clinical group differences and 50% of changes over time in patients undergoing treatment. Both instruments showed poor performance in survivors. Detection rate and measurement efficiency were clearly higher for the QLU-C10D than for the EQ-5D-3L. Conclusions The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D showed good comparative validity in patients undergoing treatment. Our results underline the benefit that can be achieved by using a cancer-specific PBM for generating health utilities for cancer patients from a measurement perspective.
Suggested Citation
Micha J. Pilz & Simon Seyringer & Lára R. Hallsson & Andrew Bottomley & Femke Jansen & Madeleine T. King & Richard Norman & Marianne J. Rutten & Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw & Peter D. Siersema & Eva Mar, 2024.
"The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands,"
The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(9), pages 1539-1555, December.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01670-6
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01670-6
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01670-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.