Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 1193–1203 | Cite as

Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 to the generic EQ-5D in metastatic breast cancer patients

  • Eun-ju Kim
  • Su-Kyoung Ko
  • Hye-Young KangEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a mapping algorithm for a conversion of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ BR-23 into the EQ-5D-derived utilities in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients.

Methods

We enrolled 199 patients with MBC from four leading Korean hospitals in 2009. EQ-5D utility, cancer-specific (QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific quality of life data (QLQ-BR23) and selected clinical and demographic information were collected from the study participants. Ordinary least squares regression models were used to model the EQ-5D using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 scale scores. To select the best model specification, six different sets of explanatory variables were compared.

Result

Regression analysis with the multiitem scale scores of QLQ-C30 was the best-performing model, explaining for 48.7% of the observed EQ-5D variation. Its mean absolute error between the observed and predicted EQ-5D utilities (0.092) and relative prediction error (2.784%) was among the smallest. Also, this mapping model showed the least systematic errors according to disease severity.

Conclusions

The mapping algorithms developed have good predictive validity, and therefore, they enable researchers to translate cancer-specific health-related quality of life measures to the preference-adjusted health status of MBC patients.

Keywords

EORTC QLQ-C30 EORTC QLQ-BR 23 EQ-5D Mapping Utility Quality of life 

Abbreviations

CUA

Cost-utility analysis.

ECOG

Eastern cooperative oncology group

EORTC QLQ-BR23 (or QLQ-BR23)

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire breast cancer-23

EORTC QLQ-C30 (or QLQ-C 30)

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core-30

EQ-VAS

EQ-5D visual analogue scale

ISPOR

International society for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research

MBC

Metastatic breast cancer

NHI

National health insurance

OLS

Ordinary least squares

QALYs

Quality-adjusted life years

QOL

Quality of life

RPE

Relative prediction error

VIF

Variance inflation factor

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Limited.

References

  1. 1.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Aletras, V. H., Paliouras, D., & Niakas, D. (2009). Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15 D instruments. Value in Health, 12(8), 1151–1157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patrick, D. L., & Deyo, R. A. (1989). Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Medical Care, 27(Supp l), S217–S232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rivero-Arias, O., Quellet, M., Gray, A., Wolstenhome, J., Rothwell, P. M., & Luengo-Fernandez, R. (2009). Mapping the modified rankin scale (mRS) measurement into the generic EuroQol (EQ-5D) health outcome. Medical Decision Making, 30(3), 341–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheung, Y. B., Tan, L. C. S., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Luo, N. (2008). Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index. Quality of Life Research, 17, 1173–1181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bottomley, A., & Aaronson, N. K. (2007). International perspective on health-related quality-of-life research in cancer clinical trials: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(32), 5082–5086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ C-30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(6), 365–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKenzie, L., & Pol, M. (2009). Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: The potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value in Health, 12(1), 167–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, E. Q., Mulani, P., Farrell, M. H., & Sleep, D. (2007). Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value in Health, 10(5), 408–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crott, R., & Briggs, A. (2010). Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(4), 427–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korea National Cancer Information Center. (2010). Prevalence of cancer. cited August 28, 2010, from URL http://www.cancer.go.kr/cms/statistics/stat/1373001_1611.html.
  11. 11.
    Health Insurance Review and Assessment Services. (2006). Korean pharmaceutical economic evaluation guidelines. Cited December 25, 2010, from URL http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Korean_PE_Guidelines_Korean_Version.pdf.
  12. 12.
    Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Curan, D., & Groenvold, M. (1999). On behalf of EORTC quality of life study group. EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (2nd ed.). Brussels: EORTC.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sprangers, M. A. G., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., et al. (1996). the EORTC breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a three-country field study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14(10), 2756–2768.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The EuroQol Group. EQ-5D. Cited December 25, 2010, from URL http://www.euroqol.org.
  15. 15.
    Lee, Y. K., Nam, H. S., Chuang, L. H., et al. (2009). South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: Modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value in Health, 12(8), 1187–1193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borras, J. M., Sanchez-Hernandez, A., Navarro, M., et al. (2001). Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: A randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 322, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization. (1980). WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Neoplasma, 20, 37–46.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dakin, H., Petrou, S., Haggard, M., Benge, S., & Williamson, I. (2010). Mapping analyses to estimate health utilities based on responses to the OM8–30 otitis media questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 19(1), 65–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Versteegh, M. M., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. B., & Stolk, E. A. (2010). Mapping onto EQ-5 D for patients in poor health. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2009). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. European Journal of Health Economics, 2010(11), 215–225.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2009). Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5 D index: How reliable is the relationship? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sauerland, S., Weiner, S., Dolezalova, K., Angrisani, L., Noguera, C. M., Garcia-Caballero, M., et al. (2009). Mapping utility scores from a disease-specific quality-of-life measure in Bariatric surgery patients. Value in Health, 12(2), 364–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vittinghoff, E., Shiboski, S. C., Glidden, D. V., McCulloch, C. E. (2005). Regression methods in biostatistics: Linear, logistic, survival, and repeated measures models (Chap. 5, pp. 147–148). New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    SAS/STAT(R) 9.2 (2009). User’s Guide (2nd ed.), (Chap. 4, pp. 98). Cary, North Carolina, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). The Korea national health and nutrition examination survey (KNHANES IV). Seoul: Korea Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs, p. 290.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Public HealthSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Graduate School of Public HealthYonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Market AccessPfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea LimitedSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.College of Pharmacy, Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical SciencesYonsei UniversityYeonsu-guSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations