Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Stuart Peacock¹  Karen Gelmon²  Barb Melosky²  Stephen Chia²  Kim Van der Hoek³  Helen McTaggart-Cowan³  Paulos Teckle¹ 

[1] School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada;Cancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada

关键词: Utility assessment;    Regression modeling;    Quality adjusted life-years;    Mapping;    Cross-walking;    Cancer-specific instrument;   

Others  :  822051
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-203

 received in 2013-07-16, accepted in 2013-11-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Objective

To help facilitate economic evaluations of oncology treatments, we mapped responses on cancer-specific instrument to generic preference-based measures.

Methods

Cancer patients (n = 367) completed one cancer-specific instrument, the FACT-G, and two preference-based measures, the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Responses were randomly divided to form development (n = 184) and cross-validation (n = 183) samples. Relationships between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized linear models (GLM), and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression approaches. The performance of each model was assessed in terms of how well the responses to the cancer-specific instrument predicted EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE).

Results

Physical, functional, and emotional well-being domain scores of the FACT-G best explained the EQ-5D and SF-6D. In terms of accuracy of prediction as measured in RMSE, the CLAD model performed best for the EQ-5D (RMSE = 0.095) whereas the GLM model performed best for the SF-6D (RMSE = 0.061). The GLM predicted SF-6D scores matched the observed values more closely than the CLAD and OLS.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that the estimation of both EQ-5D and SF-6D utility indices using the FACT-G responses can be achieved. The CLAD model for the EQ-5D and the GLM model for the SF-6D are recommended. Thus, it is possible to estimate quality-adjusted life years for economic evaluation from studies where only cancer-specific instrument have been administered.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Teckle et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Canadian Cancer Society: Canadian Cancer Statistics 2011. 2011. Source: http://www.cancer.ca/ webcite Accessed March 8, 2013
• [2]Statistics Canada: Leading Causes of Death in Canada, 2008. Ottawa; 2011. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/84-215-x/2011001/hl-fs-eng.htm webcite Accessed March 8, 2013. ISBN 1913–7826
• [3]Levine MN, Ganz PA, Haller DG: Economic evaluation in the journal of clinical oncology: past, present, and future. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25(6):614-616.
• [4]Raftery JP: Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand. Med J Aust 2008, 188(1):26-28.
• [5]Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd edition. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
• [6]Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M: A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002, 360(9334):711-715.
• [7]Gafni A, Birch S: NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 2003, 21(3):149-157.
• [8]Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, Viney R: The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26(4):297-310.
• [9]Taylor R: Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: government agency perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2001, 19(2):33-38.
• [10]Tilson L, Barry M: European Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Strategies. National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland: Dublin; 2005.
• [11]Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al.: The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993, 11:570-579.
• [12]Brazier JE, Roberts J: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004, 42(9):851-859.
• [13]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35:1095-1108.
• [14]Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C: Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56(1):52-60.
• [15]Brazier J, 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 2009.
• [16]Mortimer D, Segal L: Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Making 2008, 28(1):66-89.
• [17]Adams R, Walsh C, Veale D, Bresnihan B, FitzGerald O, Barry M: Understanding the relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and disease activity in inflammatory arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 2010, 28(6):477-487.
• [18]Bansback N, Marra C, Tsuchiya A, Anis A, Guh D, Hammond T, et al.: Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57(6):963-971.
• [19]Brazier JE, Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Williams GR: Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health 2004, 7(4):490-498.
• [20]Brazier J, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C: Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the king’s health questionnaire. Med Decis Making 2008, 28(1):113-126.
• [21]Buxton MJ, Lacey L, Feagan B, Niecko T, Miller D, Townsend R: Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire and crohn‘s disease activity index in crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health 2007, 10(3):214-220.
• [22]Cheung YB, Thumboo J, Gao F, Ng GY, Pang G, Koo WH, et al.: 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.
• [23]Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BEK: Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver dam health outcomes study. Med Decis Making 1997, 17(1):1-9.
• [24]Koltowska-Haggstrom M, Jonsson B, Isacson D, Bingefors K: Using EQ-5D to derive general population-based utilities for the quality of life assessment of growth hormone deficiency in adults (QoL-AGHDA). Value Health 2007, 10(1):73-81.
• [25]Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras VH, Paliouras D, Niakas D: Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health 2009, 12(8):1151-1157.
• [26]Sauerland S, Weiner S, Dolezalova K, Angrisani L, Noguera C, García-Caballero M, et al.: Mapping utility scores from a disease-specific quality-of-life measure in bariatric surgery patients. Value Health 2008, 12(2):364-370.
• [27]Lin FJ, Longworth L, Pickard AS: Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual Life Res 2013, 22(4):853-874.
• [28]McTaggart-Cowan H, Teckle P, Peacock S: Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: a review of the literature. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013. In Press
• [29]Wong CKH, Lam CLK, Rowen D, McGhee SM, Ma KP, Law WL, et al.: Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general or -colorectal to SF-6D in Chinese patients with colorectal neoplasm. Value Health 2012, 15:495-503.
• [30]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(5):408-414.
• [31]Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada: Canadian Cancer Statistics 2010. 2010. Source: http://www.cancer.ca/ webcite Accessed August 30, 2011
• [32]Brooks R: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37:53-72.
• [33]Shaw J, Johnson JA, Coons SJ: US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005, 43(3):203-220.
• [34]Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K: Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1115-1128.
• [35]Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA: Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2004, 24(2):160-169.
• [36]Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Marthe RG, Tancredi DJ: Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Medical Care 2003, 41(11):1277-1283.
• [37]Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, Tancredi DJ, Jia H: Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making 2004, 24(3):247-254.
• [38]Longworth L, Buxton M, Sculpher M, Smith D: Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur J Health Econ 2005, 6(4):347-353.
• [39]McKenzie L, van der Pol M: Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health 2008, 12(1):167-171.
• [40]Nichol MB, Sengupta N, Globe DR: Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med Decis Making 2001, 21(2):105-112.
• [41]Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V: Mapping the EQ-5D Index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2006, 26(4):401-409.
• [42]Powell JL: Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression-model. J Econ 1984, 25(3):303-325.
• [43]Huang IC, Frangakis C, Atkinson MJ, Willke RJ, Leite WL, Vogel WB: Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Serv Res 2008, 43(1p1):327-339.
• [44]Hyndman RJ, Koehler AB: Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting 2010, 22(4):679-688.
• [45]StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 11.0 for Windows. Texas: College Station; 2010.
• [46]Teckle P, Peacock S, McTaggart-Cowan H, van der Hoek K, Chia S, Melosky B, et al.: The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011, 9(1):106. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]Dolan P, Kahneman D: Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J 2008, 118(525):215-234.
• [48]Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, et al.: Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005, 4(4):201-208.
• [49]Pearman T: Quality of life and psychosocial adjustment in gynecologic cancer survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1(1):33. BioMed Central Full Text
• [50]Jang RW, Isogai PK, Mittmann N, Bradbury PA, Shepherd FA, Feld R: Derivation of utility values from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 Questionnaire Values in Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010, 5(12):1953-1957.
• [51]Johnson JA, Pickard ASB: Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 Health Surveys in a General Population Survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care 2000, 38(1):115-121.
• [52]Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, et al.: A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60(7):1571-1582.
• [53]Rabin R, de Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):337-343.