Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background. The EQ-5D and SF-6D are 2 health-related quality-of-life indexes that provide preference-weighted measures for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. Methods. The National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium included the EQ-5D and SF-12v2 in their survey of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. Utilities were calculated from patient-provided scores for each domain of the EQ-5D or the SF-6D. Utilities were calculated for categories of cancer type, stage, and treatment. Results. There were 5015 enrolled lung cancer patients with a baseline survey in CanCORS; 2396 (47.8%) completed the EQ-5D, and 2344 (46.7%) also completed the SF-12v2. The mean (standard deviation) utility from the EQ-5D was 0.78 (0.18), and from the SF-6D (derived from SF-12v2) was 0.68 (0.14). The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect, with 20% of patients reporting perfect scores, translating to a utility of 1.0. No substantial SF-6D floor effects were noted. Utilities increased with age and decreased with stage and comorbidities. Patient-reported (EQ-5D) visual analog scale scores for health status had a moderate (r = 0.48, p < 0.0001) positive correlation with utilities. A subset (n = 1474) completed follow-up EQ-5D questionnaires 11–13 months after diagnosis. Among these patients, there was a nonsignificant decrease in mean utility for stage IV and an increase in mean utility for stages I, II, and III. Conclusion. This study generated a catalog of community-weighted utilities applicable to societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer interventions and compared utilities based on the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Potential users of these scores should be aware of the limitations and think carefully about their use in specific studies.

Keywords

lung cancer utilities quality-of-life EQ5D SF6D

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gold

Siegel

Russell

Weinstein

. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

Ware

Kosinski

Bjorner

. User’s Manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Lincoln (RI): Quality Metric, Inc.; 2007.

Earle

Chapman

Baker

. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3302–17.

Sturza

. A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(6):685–93.

Kind

Macran

. Eliciting social preference weights for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:1143–53.

Ayanian

Chrischilles

Fletcher

. Understanding cancer treatment and outcomes: the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2992–6.

EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

Shaw

Johnson

Coons

. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–20.

Malin

Ayanian

. Understanding cancer patients’ experience and outcomes: development and pilot study of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance patient survey. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14:837–48.

10.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Calculating the U.S. Population-Based EQ-5D Index Score. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; 2005.

11.

Shaw

Johnson

Chen

Levin

Coons

. Racial/ethnic differences in preferences for the EQ-5D health states: results from the U.S. valuation study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:479–90.

12.

Brazier

Roberts

. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851–9.

13.

Bergman

Aaronson

Ahmedzai

Kaasa

Sullivan

. The EORTC QLQ-LC13: a modular supplement to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A:635–42.

14.

Hinz

Einenkel

Briest

Stolzenburg

Papsdorf

Singer

. Is it useful to calculate sum scores of the quality of life questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30? Eur J Cancer Care. 2012;21:677–83.

15.

Hart

. Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: differences in spread can be important. BMJ. 2001;323:391–3.

16.

Neumann

Weinstein

. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1495–7.

17.

Luo

Johnson

Shaw

Coons

. Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Med Care. 2009;47:53–60.

18.

Palta

Chen

Kaplan

Feeny

Cherepanov

Fryback

. Standard error of measurement of 5 health utility indexes across the range of health for use in estimating reliability and responsiveness. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:260–9.

19.

Fryback

Palta

Cherepanov

Bolt

Kim

. Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:5–15.

20.

Fryback

Dunham

Palta

. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Med Care. 2007;45:1162–70.

21.

Herdman

Gudex

Lloyd

. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.

22.

van Hout

Janssen

Feng

. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–15.

23.

Grutters

Joore

Wiegman

. Health-related quality of life in patients surviving non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax. 2010;65:903–7.

24.

McHorney

Tarlov

. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.

25.

Bottomley

Gaafar

Manegold

. Short-term treatment-related symptoms and quality of life: results from an international randomized phase III study of cisplatin with or without raltitrexed in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: an EORTC Lung-Cancer Group and National Cancer Institute, Canada, Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1435–42.

26.

Hollen

Gralla

Kris

. Measurement of quality of life in patients with lung cancer in multicenter trials of new therapies. Psychometric assessment of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale. Cancer. 1994;73:2087–98.

27.

Pickard

Neary

Cella

. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.

28.

Walters

Brazier

. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4.

29.

Cherepanov

Palta

Fryback

. Underlying dimensions of the five health-related quality-of-life measures used in utility assessment: evidence from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2010;48:718–25.

30.

Chen

Nguyen

Cramarossa

. Symptom clusters in patients with lung cancer: a literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:433–9.

31.

Iyer

Roughley

Rider

Taylor-Stokes

. The symptom burden of non-small cell lung cancer in the USA: a real-world cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:181–7.

32.

Chen

Antras

Duh

. Psychometric validation of the Patient Symptom Assessment in Lung Cancer instrument for small cell lung cancer. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:2741–52.

33.

Brazier

Rowen

Mavranezouli

. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–114.

34.

Johnson

Luo

Shaw

Kind

Coons

. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med Care. 2005;43:221–8.

35.

Tomlinson

Bremner

Ritvo

Naglie

Krahn

. Development and validation of a utility weighting function for the patient-oriented prostate utility scale (PORPUS). Med Decis Making. 2012;32:11–30.

36.

Sundaram

Smith

Revicki

Miller

Madhavan

Hobbs

. Estimation of a valuation function for a diabetes mellitus-specific preference-based measure of health: the Diabetes Utility Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:201–16.

37.

Pickard

Ray

Ganguli

Cella

. Comparison of FACT- and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer. Value Health. 2012;15:305–11.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB

0.02 MB

Catalog and Comparison of Societal Preferences (Utilities) for Lung Cancer Health States

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material