IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i4d10.1007_s41669-024-00484-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cancer-Specific Health Utilities: Evaluation of Core Measurement Properties of the EORTC QLU-C10D in Lung Cancer Patients—Data from Four Multicentre LUX-Lung Trials, Applying Six Country Tariffs

Author

Listed:
  • Micha J. Pilz

    (Medical University of Innsbruck)

  • Simone Seyringer

    (Medical University of Innsbruck)

  • Imad Al-Naesan

    (Medical University of Innsbruck)

  • Madeleine T. King

    (University of Sydney)

  • Andrew Bottomley

    (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer)

  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

  • Lisa Schlosser

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Tobias Hell

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Eva Maria Gamper

    (Medical University of Innsbruck)

Abstract

Background Cost-utility analysis generally requires valid preference-based measures (PBMs) to assess the utility of patient health. While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs may capture additional aspects of health relevant for certain patient populations. This study investigates the construct and concurrent criterion validity of the cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Methods We retrospectively analysed data from four multicentre LUX-Lung trials, all of which had administered the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the EQ-5D-3L. We applied six country-specific value sets (Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom) to both instruments. Criterion validity was assessed via correlations between the instruments’ utility scores. Correlations of divergent and convergent domains and Bland-Altman plots investigated construct validity. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed. Results The comparison of the EORTC QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L produced homogenous results for five of the six country tariffs. High correlations of utilities (r > 0.7) were found for all country tariffs except for the Netherlands. Moderate to high correlations of converging domain pairs (r from 0.472 to 0.718) were found with few exceptions, such as the Social Functioning–Usual Activities domain pair (max. r = 0.376). For all but the Dutch tariff, the EORTC QLU-C10D produced consistently lower utility values compared to the EQ-5D-3L (x̄ difference from − 0.082 to 0.033). Floor and ceiling effects were consistently lower for the EORTC QLU-C10D (max. 4.67% for utilities). Conclusions The six country tariffs showed good psychometric properties for the EORTC QLU-C10D in lung cancer patients. Criterion and construct validity was established. The QLU-C10D showed superior measurement precision towards the upper and lower end of the scale compared to the EQ-5D-3L, which is important when cost-utility analysis seeks to measure health change across the severity spectrum.

Suggested Citation

  • Micha J. Pilz & Simone Seyringer & Imad Al-Naesan & Madeleine T. King & Andrew Bottomley & Richard Norman & Lisa Schlosser & Tobias Hell & Eva Maria Gamper, 2024. "Cancer-Specific Health Utilities: Evaluation of Core Measurement Properties of the EORTC QLU-C10D in Lung Cancer Patients—Data from Four Multicentre LUX-Lung Trials, Applying Six Country Tariffs," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 627-640, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00484-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00484-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00484-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-024-00484-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Munir A. Khan & Gang Chen & Aimee Maxwell, 2016. "Measuring the Sensitivity and Construct Validity of 6 Utility Instruments in 7 Disease Areas," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 147-159, February.
    2. Elizabeth Goodwin & Colin Green, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 161-183, April.
    3. Dennis A. Revicki & Madeleine T. King & Rosalie Viney & A. Simon Pickard & Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber & James W. Shaw & Fabiola Müller & Richard Norman, 2021. "United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 485-501, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    3. Chen-Wei Pan & Jun-Yi He & Yan-Bo Zhu & Chun-Hua Zhao & Nan Luo & Pei Wang, 2023. "Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 885-893, August.
    4. Andrew J. Palmer & Julie A. Campbell & Barbara de Graaff & Nancy Devlin & Hasnat Ahmad & Philip M Clarke & Mingsheng Chen & Lei Si, 2021. "Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1950-1977, August.
    5. Ian Ross & Giulia Greco & Charles Opondo & Zaida Adriano & Rassul Nala & Joe Brown & Robert Dreibelbis & Oliver Cumming, 2022. "Measuring and valuing broader impacts in public health: Development of a sanitation‐related quality of life instrument in Maputo, Mozambique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 466-480, March.
    6. Yiyin Cao & Haofei Li & Ling Jie Cheng & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler & David Cella & Hongjuan Yu & Weidong Huang & Nan Luo, 2024. "A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Colin Green & Elizabeth Goodwin & Annie Hawton, 2017. "“Naming and Framing†: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 703-714, August.
    8. Shitong Xie & Jing Wu & Gang Chen, 2024. "Comparative performance and mapping algorithms between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among the Chinese general population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 7-19, February.
    9. Myles-Jay Linton & Paul Mark Mitchell & Hareth Al-Janabi & Michael Schlander & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Jasper Ubels & Joanna Coast, 2020. "Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 651-673, July.
    10. Haode Wang & Donna L. Rowen & John E. Brazier & Litian Jiang, 2023. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 405-418, May.
    11. Mihir Gandhi & Ravindran Kanesvaran & Mohamad Farid Bin Harunal Rashid & Dawn Qingqing Chong & Wen-Yee Chay & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Richard Norman & Madeleine T. King & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) in a Multi-ethnic Asian Setting: How Does Having Cancer Matter?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1413-1425, December.
    12. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Billingsley Kaambwa & Nikki McCaffrey & Jeff Richardson, 2018. "Empirical Comparison Between Capability and Two Health-Related Quality of Life Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 175-190, November.
    13. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    14. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00484-9. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.