The EORTC QLU-C10D is a multiattribute utility measure derived from the cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains 10 dimensions (physical, role, social and emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, bowel problems). The objective of this study was to develop a United States value set for the QLU-C10D.
Methods
A US online panel was quota recruited to achieve a representative sample for sex, age (≥18 y), race, and ethnicity. Respondents undertook a discrete choice experiment, each completing 16 choice-pairs, randomly assigned from a total of 960 choice-pairs. Each pair included 2 QLU-C10D health states and duration. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression, parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient for life expectancy.
Results
A total of 2480 panel members opted in, 2333 (94%) completed at least 1 choice-pair, and 2273 (92%) completed all choice-pairs. Within dimensions, weights were generally monotonic. Physical functioning, role functioning, and pain were associated with the largest utility weights. Cancer-specific dimensions, such as nausea and bowel problems, were associated with moderate utility decrements, as were general issues such as problems with emotional functioning and social functioning. Sleep problems and fatigue were associated with smaller utility decrements. The value of the worst health state was 0.032, which was slightly greater than 0 (equivalent to being dead).
Conclusions
This study provides the US-specific value set for the QLU-C10D. These estimated health state scores, based on responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, can be used to evaluate the cost-utility of oncology treatments.
NeumannPSandersGDRussellLBSiegelJEGaniatsTG. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
2.
WeinsteinMTorranceGMcGuireA. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;11:S5–S9.
3.
SchnipperLEDavidsonNEWollinsDS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–77.
4.
RowenDBrazierJAraRAzzabi ZouraqI. The role of condition-specific preference-based measures in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(suppl 1):33–41.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. ICER’s Updated Value Assessment Framework. 2019. Available from: ICER-Review.org
8.
AaronsonNKBullingerMAhmedzaiS. A modular approach to quality of life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1988;111:231–49.
9.
AaronsonNKAhmedzaiSBergmanB, et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.
10.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.
11.
VersteeghMMLeunisAUyl-de GrootCAStolkEA. Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden?Value Health. 2012;15(3):504–13.
12.
BrazierJERowenDMavranezouliI, et al. 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(32):1–114.
13.
GoodwinEGreenC. A systematic review of the literature on the development of condition-specific preference-based measures of health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(2):161–83.
14.
WailooADavisSToshJ. The incorporation of health benefits in cost utility analysis using the EQ-5D. Sheffield (UK): Decision Support Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield;2010.
15.
McTaggart-CowanHTecklePPeacockS. Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: a review of the literature. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13(6):753–65.
16.
KingMTVineyRSimon PickardA, et al. Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(2):225–38.
17.
VersteeghMMBrouwerWBF. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.
18.
PoderTGCarrierNMcFaddenNPavicM. Health utilities in cancer patients: a study protocol for a prospective, longitudinal cohort using online survey. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(9):e14647.
19.
KemmlerGGamperENerichVNormanRKingMTHolznerB. Comparison of German, French and Polish utility weights for the EORTC utility instrument QLU-C10D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(suppl 1):1027.
20.
McTaggart-CowanHKingMTNormanR, et al. The QLU-C10D: the Canadian valuation study of a new cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy Pract2019;4(1):2381468319842532.
21.
NormanRMercieca-BebberRBrazierJ, et al. UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ. 2019;28(12):1385–401.
22.
BansbackNBrazierJTsuchiyaAAnisA. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306–18.
23.
LancsarELouviereJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.
24.
NormanRVineyRBrazierJ, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):773–86.
25.
VineyRNormanRBrazierJ, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health States. Health Econ. 2014;23(6):729–42.
26.
MulhernBNormanRStreetDJVineyR. One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(1):29–43.
27.
de Bekker-GrobEWDonkersBJonkerMFStolkEA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8(5):373–84.
WareJEJrGandekB. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903–12.
30.
HerdmanMGudexCLloydA, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.
31.
NormanRCroninPVineyR. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):287–98.
32.
ChaudhrySJinLMeltzerD. Use of a self-report-generated Charlson Comorbidity Index for predicting mortality. Med Care. 2005;43(6):607–15.
33.
PickardASShawJWLinHW, et al. A patient-based utility measure of health for clinical trials of cancer therapy based on the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. Value Health. 2009;12(6):977–88.
34.
YoungTYangYBrazierJETsuchiyaACoyneK. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):253–65.
35.
KingMTCostaDSAaronsonNK, et al. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):625–36.
36.
NormanRVineyRAaronsonNK, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49.
37.
NormanRKemmlerGVineyR, et al. Order of presentation of dimensions does not systematically bias utility weights from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2016;19(8):1033–8.
38.
ColbournCJDinitzJH. Handbook of Combinatorial Designs. RosenKH, ed. Boca Raton (FL): Taylor and Francis Group; 2006.
39.
StreetDJBurgessL. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2007.
40.
DemirkaleFDonovanDStreetDJ. Constructing D-optimal symmetric stated preference discrete choice experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 2013;143:1380–91.
41.
NormanRVineyRAaronsonNK, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49.
42.
FrybackDGDunhamNCPaltaM, et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Med Care. 2007;45(12):1162–70.
43.
LiuHCellaDGershonR, et al. Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1169–78.
44.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station (TX): StataCorp; 2013.
45.
BleichrodtNWakkerPJohannessonM. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;15(2):107–14.
46.
HoleAR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16:827–40.
47.
MukuriaCRowenDBrazierJEYoungTANafeesB. Deriving a preference-based measure for myelofibrosis from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the MF-SAF. Value Health. 2015;18(6):846–55.
48.
MulhernBRowenDJacobyA, et al. The development of a QALY measure for epilepsy: NEWQOL-6D. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24(1):36–43.
49.
RowenDBrazierJYoungT, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health. 2011;14(5):721–31.
50.
RowenDMulhernBBanerjeeS, et al. Estimating preference-based single index measures for dementia using DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy. Value Health. 2012;15(2):346–56.
51.
StevensK. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(8):729–47.
52.
ReveltDTrainKE. Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit. Berkeley (CA): University of California, Berkeley; 1999.
53.
HoleAR. Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. STATA J. 2007;7:388–401.
54.
PickardASLawEHJiangR, et al. United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states using an international protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(8):931–41.
55.
LegerDPoursainBNeubauerDUchiyamaM. An international survey of sleeping problems in the general population. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(1):307–17.
56.
BootsmaTISchellekensMPJvan WoezikRAMvan der LeeMLSlatmanJ. Experiencing and responding to chronic cancer-related fatigue: a meta-ethnography of qualitative research. Psychooncology. 2020;29(2):241–50.
57.
ThongMSMolsFWangXSLemmensVESmildeTJvan de Poll-FranseLV. Quantifying fatigue in (long-term) colorectal cancer survivors: a study from the population-based patient reported outcomes following initial treatment and long term evaluation of survivorship registry. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(8):1957–66.
58.
van GelderTMulhernBSchoormansDHussonODe Abreu LourencoR. Assessing health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: factors impacting on EORTC QLU-C10D-derived utility values. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(6):1483–94.
59.
NormanRMulhernBVineyR. The impact of different DCE-based approaches when anchoring utility scores. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(8):805–14.
60.
FlynnT. Using conjoint analysis to estimate health state values for cost-utility analysis: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):711–22.
61.
JiangRShawJPickardES. Comparison of online and face-to-face valuations of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off and discrete choice tasks. Poster presented at: 40th North American Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; Montreal, QC, Canada; 2018.
62.
MulhernBLongworthLBrazierJ, et al. Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI. Value Health. 2013;16(1):104–13.
63.
JonkerMFDonkersBde Bekker-GrobEWStolkEA. Effect of level overlap and color coding on attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2018;21(7):767–71.
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.
