Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

To what extent does the EQ-5D-3L correlate with the FACT-H&N of patients with oral cancer during the perioperative period?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The EuroQol 5-dimension scale (EQ-5D) is one of the most frequently used preference-based quality of life (QOL) measures for health technology assessment. The 3-level version of the EQ-5D comprises a descriptive system (the EQ-5D-3L) and a visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). It remains unclear whether this five-item scale correlates with the QOL of patients with oral cancer during the perioperative period. We sought to clarify this point in the present study.

Methods

Participants were 84 patients with oral malignancies who underwent radical treatment and completed the EQ-5D-3L and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N) at regular intervals over 3 months after treatment. We analyzed the correlations between the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and FACT-H&N, and conducted multiple regression analyses to examine how the FACT-H&N subscales relate to the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS. We also investigated whether the EQ-5D-3L shows ceiling effects.

Results

The EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS were strongly correlated with the FACT-H&N (rs = 0.621 and 0.638, respectively; P < 0.01). Furthermore, the EQ-5D-3L was significantly related with all FACT-H&N subscales except for social/family well-being. Particularly, the physical well-being subscale had the strongest relationship with the EQ-5D-3L. The FACT H&N and EQ-5D-3L showed similar changes over time. The EQ-5D-3L did not have a ceiling effect statistically.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that actual physical performance might be most important for cost–utility analysis, whereas the assessment of familial feelings or friendship seems less important. However, the EQ-5D-3L appears to generally correlate with the FACT-H&N of patients with oral cancer during the perioperative period. Therefore, it is reasonable to assess the cost performance of oral cancer treatment using the EQ-5D-3L in Japan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K et al (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T et al (2014) Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess 18:1–224. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tosh JC, Longworth LJ, George E (2011) Utility values in national institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) technology appraisals. Value Health 14:102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. List MA, D’Antonio LL, Cella DF, et al (1996) The performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients and the functional assessment of cancer therapy-head and Neck Scale. A study of utility and validity. Cancer 77:2294–2301. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19960601)77:11%3C2294::aid-cncr17%3E3.3.co;2-t.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bjordal K, Kaasa S (1992) Psychometric validation of the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, 30-item version and a diagnosis-specific module for head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 31:311–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nishimura S, Tsuchiya A, Hisashige A et al (1998) The development of the Japanese EuroQol instrument. Iryo To Shakai 8:109–123. https://doi.org/10.4091/iken1991.8.1_109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ikeda S, Ikegami N, on behalf of the Japanese EuroQol Tariff Project (1999) Health status in Japanese population: results from Japanese EuroQol study. J Health Care Soc 9:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N et al (2002) Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 11:341–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A et al (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20:1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS et al (2012) Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15:708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ikeda S, Shiroiwa T, Igarashi I et al (2015) Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. J Natl Inst Public Health 64:47–55

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S et al (2016) Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 25:707–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M et al (1995) Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index Pharmacoecon 7:490–502

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R et al (1998) Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1115–1128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D et al (2006) Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost–utility analyses. Value Health 9:213–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sakamaki H, Ikeda S, Ikegami N et al (2006) Measurement of HRQL using EQ-5D in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan. Value Health 9:47–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00080.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Licitra L, Mesía R, Keilholz U (2016) Individualised quality of life as a measure to guide treatment choices in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Oral Oncol 52:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.10.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pfister DG, Spencer S, Brizel DM et al (2015) Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 13:847–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11:570–579. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fumimoto H, Kobayashi K, Chang CH et al (2001) Cross-cultural validation of an international questionnaire, the General Measure of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale (FACT-G), for Japanese. Qual Life Res 10:701–709

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. D’Antonio LL, Zimmerman GJ, Cella DF et al (1996) Quality of life and functional status measures in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 122:482–487. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1996.01890170018005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rogers SN, Ahad SA, Murphy AP (2007) A structured review and theme analysis of papers published on ‘quality of life’ in head and neck cancer: 2000–2005. Oral Oncol 43:843–868. doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2007.02.006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Aoki T, Ota Y, Suzuki T et al (2018) Longitudinal changes in the quality of life of oral cancer patients during the perioperative period. Int J Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1322-3. [Epub ahead of print]

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (1996) Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 14:671–679. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.2.671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U et al (2015) A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 26:1547–1573. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin NJ (2014) Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res 23:977–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S (1988) Clinical applications of visual analog scales: a critical review. Psychol Med 18:1007–1019

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wewers ME, Lowe NK (1990) A critical review of visual analog scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 13:227–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that there was no funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan

    Takayuki Aoki, Yoshihide Ota, Masashi Sasaki & Ken-ichi Aoyama

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokai University School of Medicine, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan

    Takeshi Akiba

  3. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tokai University School of Medicine, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan

    Yukari Shirasugi

  4. Department of Oral Epidemiology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8553, Japan

    Mariko Naito

  5. Department of Health and Welfare Services, National Institute of Public Health, 2-3-6 Minami, Wako, Saitama, 351-0197, Japan

    Takeru Shiroiwa

Authors
  1. Takayuki Aoki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yoshihide Ota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masashi Sasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ken-ichi Aoyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takeshi Akiba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yukari Shirasugi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mariko Naito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Takeru Shiroiwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayuki Aoki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aoki, T., Ota, Y., Sasaki, M. et al. To what extent does the EQ-5D-3L correlate with the FACT-H&N of patients with oral cancer during the perioperative period?. Int J Clin Oncol 24, 350–358 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1364-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1364-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation