Mapping the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index in a Multi-ethnic Asian population

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Chun Fan Lee²  Raymond Ng¹  Nan Luo³  Yin Bun Cheung⁴ 

[1] Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center, Singapore, Singapore;Department of Biostatistics, Singapore Clinical Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore;Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore;Department of International Health, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

关键词: Quality of life;    Mapping;    Health utility;    FACT-B;    EQ-5D-5L;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  1133913
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0180-6

 received in 2014-06-30, accepted in 2014-11-22,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

To develop an algorithm for mapping the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index.

Methods

A survey of 238 breast cancer patients in Singapore was conducted. Models using various regression methods with or without recognizing the upper boundary of utility values at 1 were fitted to predict the EQ-5D-5L utility index based on the five subscale scores of the FACT-B. Data from a follow-up survey of these patients were used to validate the results.

Results

A model that maps the physical, emotional, functional well-being and the breast cancer concerns subscales of the FACT-B to the EQ-5D-5L utility index was derived. The social well-being subscale was not associated to the utility index. Although theoretical assumptions may not be valid, ordinary least square outperformed other regression methods. The mean predicted utility index within each performance status level at follow-up deviated from the observed mean less than the minimally important difference of EQ-5D for cancer patients.

Conclusions

The mapping algorithm converts the FACT-B to the EQ-5D utility index. This enables oncologists, clinical researchers and policy makers to obtain a quantitative utility summary of a patient’s health status when only the FACT-B is assessed.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Cheung et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1][https:/ / www.nice.org.uk/ article/ pmg9/ resources/ non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-o f-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf] webcite National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Available at . accessed 13 December 2014.
• [2]Longworth L, Rowen D: NICE DSU Technical Support Document 10: the Use of Mapping Methods to Estimate Health State Utility Values. Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; 2011.
• [3]Longworth L, Rowen D: Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health 2013, 16:202-210.
• [4]Dakin H: Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:151. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Cella D: FACIT Manual: Manual of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System. CORE, Evanston, IL; 1997.
• [6]Webster K, Cella D, Yost K: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:79. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Cheung YB, Thumboo J, Gao F, Ng GY, Pang G, Koo WH, Sethi VK, Wee J, Goh C: Mapping the English and Chinese versions of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general to the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health 2009, 12(2):371-376.
• [8]Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, Sleep D: Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health 2007, 10:408-414.
• [9]Askew RL, Swartz RJ, Xing Y, Cantor SB, Ross MI, Gershenwald JE, Palmer JL, Lee JE, Cormier JN: Mapping FACT-melanoma quality-of-life scores to EQ-5D health utility weights. Value Health 2011, 14:900-906.
• [10]Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011, 61:69-90.
• [11]Lee CF, Luo N, Ng R, Wong NS, Yap YS, Lo SK, Chia WK, Yee A, Krishna L, Wong C, Goh C, Cheung YB: Comparison of the Measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:1745-1751.
• [12]Wan C, Zhang D, Yang Z, Tu X, Tang W, Feng C, Wang H, Tang X: Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-B for measuring quality of life for patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007, 106:413-418.
• [13]Brady M, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS, Lloyd SR, Deasy S, Cobleigh M, Shiomoto G: Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy – breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:974-986.
• [14]Ng R, Lee CF, Wong NS, Luo N, Yap YS, Lo SK, Chia WK, Yee A, Krishna L, Goh C, Cheung YB: Measurement properties of the English and Chinese versions of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) in Asian breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012, 131:619-625.
• [15]Pickard AS, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Bonsel G, Rosenbloom S, Cella D: Evaluating equivalency between response systems application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Med Care 2007, 45:812-819.
• [16]Lee CF, Ng R, Luo N, Wong NS, Yap YS, Lo SK, Chia WK, Yee A, Krishna L, Wong C, Goh C, Cheung YB: The English and Chinese versions of the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were valid and reliable and provided comparable scores in Asian breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2013, 21:201-209.
• [17]van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3 L value sets. Value Health 2012, 15:708-715.
• [18]Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T, Hamashima C, Hisashige A, Tamura M: Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002, 11:341-353.
• [19]Cheung YB, Goh C, Thumboo J, Khoo KS, Wee J: Variability and sample size requirements of quality-of-life measures: a randomized study of three major questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:4936-4944.
• [20]Blagden SP, Charman SC, Sharples LD, Magee LR, Gilligan D: Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree? Br J Cancer 2003, 89:1022-1027.
• [21]Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M, Purnell C: Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 1999, 7:332-335.
• [22]Austin PC: A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures. Value Health 2002, 5:329-337.
• [23]Powell JL: Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. J Econometrics 1984, 25:303-325.
• [24]Pullenayegum EM, Tarride JE, Xie F, Goeree R, Gerstein HC, O’Reilly D: Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: Are Tobit and CLAD models appropriate? Value Health 2010, 13:487-494.
• [25]Austin PC, Tu JV, Daly PA, Alter DA: The use of quantile regression in health care research: a case study examining gender differences in the timeliness of thrombolytic therapy. Stat Med 2005, 24:791-816.
• [26]Bottai M, Cai B, McKeown RE: Logistic quantile regression for bounded outcomes. Stat Med 2010, 29:309-317.
• [27]Orsini N, Bottai M: Logistic quantile regression in Stata. Stata J 2011, 11:327-344.
• [28]Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V: Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US geneneral population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2006, 26:401-409.
• [29]Cuzick J: A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985, 4:87-90.
• [30]Chuang LH, Kind P: Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: an empirical comparison of methodologies. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27:491-505.
• [31]Cheung YB, Tan LCS, Lau PN, Au WL, Luo N: Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index. Qual Life Res 2008, 17:1173-1181.
• [32]Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11:215-225.
• [33]Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D: Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:70. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Cheung YB, Thumboo J: Developing health-related quality-of-life instruments for use in Asia: the issues. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24:643-650.
• [35]Sakthong P, Charoenvisuthiwongs R, Shabunthom R: A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008, 6:71. BioMed Central Full Text