Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ H&N35 to the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D for papillary thyroid carcinoma

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Empirical evidence for the EORTC QLQ C30 scale in thyroid cancer mapping algorithms has not been found in China, which limits the cost-utility analysis of patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) population. We developed mapping algorithms that use the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ H&N35 to predict EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D health utility scores for PTC patients.

Methods

Data from 1050 Chinese PTC patients who completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ H&N35, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D instruments were collected. Direct mapping (OLS, Tobit, Betamix) and indirect mapping functions (Order Probit) were used to estimate algorithms. The goodness-of-fit of mapping performance was assessed by MAE, RMSE, AIC, BIC, AE, and ICC. A fivefold cross-validation and random sample validation approach were used to test the stability of the models.

Results

The mean EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores were 0.8704 and 0.6368, respectively. We recommend the Betamix model for the EQ-5D-5L (MAE = 0.0363, RMSE = 0.0505, AIC = -3458.73, BIC = -3096.91, AE > 0.05(%) = 48.38, AE > 0.1(%) = 8.67, ICC = 0.8288 for the full sample dataset) and the Betamix model for the SF-6D (MAE = 0.0328, RMSE = 0.0417, AIC = -2788.91, BIC = -2605.51, AE > 0.05(%) = 42.76, AE > 0.1(%) = 3.62, ICC = 0.8657 for the full sample dataset), with EORTC QLQ-C30 all items, QLQ H&N35 all items, age and gender as the predicted variables showing the best performance.

Conclusion

In the absence of preference-based quality of life tools, the mapping algorithms reported here are effective alternative for predicting the health utility of PTC patients, contributing to the cost-utility analysis studies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2020). Cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 70(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., & Bray, F. (2021). Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(3), 209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zheng, R., Zhang, S., Zeng, H., Wang, S., Sun, K., Chen, R., Li, L., Wei, W., & He, J. (2022). Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2016. Journal of the National Cancer Center, 2(1), 1–9.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Halmai, L. A., Neilson, A. R., & Kilonzo, M. (2020). Economic evaluation of interventions for the treatment of asthma in children: A systematic review. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 31(2), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.13129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Earle, C. C., Chapman, R. H., Baker, C. S., Bell, C. M., Stone, P. W., Sandberg, E. A., & Neumann, P. J. (2000). Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18(18), 3302–3317. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.18.3302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Basu, A. (2020). A welfare-theoretic model consistent with the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and its implications. Journal of Health Economics, 70, 102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wailoo, A. J., Hernandez-Alava, M., Manca, A., Mejia, A., Ray, J., Crawford, B., Botteman, M., & Busschbach, J. (2017). Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health, 20(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14543107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2018). Testing alternative regression models to predict utilities: Mapping the QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 27(11), 2823–2839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1981-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28(1), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07309642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Harnan, S., Rawdin, A., Wong, R., Ara, R., & Brazier, J. (2019). An updated systematic review of studies mapping (or cross-walking) measures of health-related quality of life to generic preference-based measures to generate utility values. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 17(3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00467-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gray, L. A., Wailoo, A. J., & Hernandez Alava, M. (2018). Mapping the FACT-B instrument to EQ-5D-3L in patients with breast cancer using adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models versus response mapping. Value Health, 21(12), 1399–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.06.006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gray, L. A., Hernández Alava, M., & Wailoo, A. J. (2018). Development of methods for the mapping of utilities using mixture models: Mapping the AQLQ-S to the EQ-5D-5L and the HUI3 in patients with asthma. Value Health, 21(6), 748–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Houten, R., Fleeman, N., Kotas, E., Boland, A., Lambe, T., & Duarte, R. (2021). A systematic review of health state utility values for thyroid cancer. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 675–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ameri, H., Yousefi, M., Yaseri, M., Nahvijou, A., Arab, M., & Akbari Sari, A. (2019). Mapping the cancer-specific QLQ-C30 onto the generic EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in colorectal cancer patients. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 19(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1517046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu, T., Li, S., Wang, M., Sun, Q., & Chen, G. (2020). Mapping the Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-BR53 Onto the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores. Patient, 13(5), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00422-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wan, C., Meng, Q., Yang, Z., Tu, X., Feng, C., Tang, X., & Zhang, C. (2008). Validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-C30 from the measurements of five types of inpatients with cancer. Annals of Oncology, 19(12), 2053–2060. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Yang, Z., Meng, Q., Luo, J., Lu, Q., Li, X., Li, G., & Wan, C. (2012). Development and validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 for patients with head and neck cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(7), 1555–1564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1247-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meregaglia, M., & Cairns, J. (2017). A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 174. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0748-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Fayers, P., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., & Sullivan, M. (1995). EORTC QLQ–C30 scoringmanual. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

  22. Sherman, A. C., Simonton, S., Adams, D. C., Vural, E., Owens, B., & Hanna, E. (2000). Assessing quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: Cross-validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Head and Neck module (QLQ-H&N35). Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 126(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.126.4.459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Group EQoLS. (2001). Brussels:EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

  24. Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Lam, C. L., Brazier, J., & McGhee, S. M. (2008). Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health, 11(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00233.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Longworth, L., & Rowen, D. (2013). Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health, 16(1), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Swinscow, T. D. V., & Campbell, M. J. (2002). London: Statistics at square one. (pp. 111–25). Bmj.

  30. Petrou, S., Rivero-Arias, O., Dakin, H., Longworth, L., Oppe, M., Froud, R., & Gray, A. (2015). The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: Explanation and elaboration. PharmacoEconomics, 33(10), 993–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0312-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dakin, H., Abel, L., Burns, R., & Yang, Y. (2018). Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: An online database and application of the MAPS statement. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0857-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Carroll, L., Benson, G., Lambert, J., Benmedjahed, K., Zak, M., & Lee, X. Y. (2019). Real-world utilities and health-related quality-of-life data in hemophilia patients in France and the United Kingdom. Patient Preference and Adherence, 13, 941–957. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S202773

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Austin, P. C., Escobar, M., & Kopec, J. A. (2000). The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008938326604

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Whitehurst, D. G., & Bryan, S. (2011). Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value in Health, 14(4), 531–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gray, L. A., & Alava, M. H. (2018). A command for fitting mixture regression models for bounded dependent variables using the beta distribution. The Stata Journal, 18(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X180180015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stewart, M. B. (2004). Semi-nonparametric estimation of extended ordered probit models. The Stata Journal, 4(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0100400102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gray, L. A., Hernandez Alava, M., & Wailoo, A. J. (2021). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L in patients with breast cancer. BMC Cancer, 21(1), 1237. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08964-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hernández Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Wolfe, F., & Michaud, K. (2014). A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes. Medical Decision Making, 34(7), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13500720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Abdin, E., Chong, S. A., Seow, E., Tan, K. B., & Subramaniam, M. (2021). Mapping the PHQ-8 to EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF6D in patients with depression. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 451. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03463-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang, F., Wong, C. K. H., Luo, N., Piercy, J., Moon, R., & Jackson, J. (2019). Mapping the kidney disease quality of life 36-item short form survey (KDQOL-36) to the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in patients undergoing dialysis. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(8), 1195–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01088-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Noel, C. W., Stephens, R. F., Su, J. S., Xu, W., Krahn, M., Monteiro, E., Goldstein, D. P., Giuliani, M., Hansen, A. R., & de Almeida, J. R. (2020). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35, onto EQ-5D-5L and HUI-3 indices in patients with head and neck cancer. Head & Neck, 42(9), 2277–2286. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Beck, A. C. C., Kieffer, J. M., Retèl, V. P., van Overveld, L. F. J., Takes, R. P., van den Brekel, M. W. M., van Harten, W. H., & Stuiver, M. M. (2019). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 to the EQ-5D for head and neck cancer: Can disease-specific utilities be obtained? PLoS ONE, 14(12), e0226077. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226077

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Woodcock, F., Doble, B., CANCER 2015 Consortium. (2018). Mapping the EORTC-QLQ-C30 to the EQ-5D-3L: An assessment of existing and newly developed algorithms. Medical Decision Making, 38(8), 954–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X18797588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stephens, R. F., Noel, C. W., Su, J. S., Xu, W., Krahn, M., Monteiro, E., Goldstein, D. P., Giuliani, M., Hansen, A. R., & de Almeida, J. R. (2020). Mapping the University of Washington Quality of life questionnaire onto EQ-5D and HUI-3 indices in patients with head and neck cancer. Head & Neck, 42(3), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thankappan, K., Patel, T., Ajithkumar, K. K., Balasubramanian, D., Raj, M., Subramanian, S., & Iyer, S. (2022). Mapping of head and neck cancer patient concerns inventory scores on to Euroqol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) health utility scores. The European Journal of Health Economics, 23(2), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01369-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Franken, M. D., de Hond, A., Degeling, K., Punt, C. J. A., Koopman, M., Uyl-de Groot, C. A., Versteegh, M. M., & van Oijen, M. G. H. (2020). Evaluation of the performance of algorithms mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D index in a metastatic colorectal cancer cost-effectiveness model. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01481-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Hagiwara, Y., Shiroiwa, T., Taira, N., Kawahara, T., Konomura, K., Noto, S., Fukuda, T., & Shimozuma, K. (2020). Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G onto EQ-5D-5L index for patients with cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01611-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Khan, I., Morris, S., Pashayan, N., Matata, B., Bashir, Z., & Maguirre, J. (2016). Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0455-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. McLeod, D. S., Sawka, A. M., & Cooper, D. S. (2013). Controversies in primary treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer. Lancet, 381(9871), 1046–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62205-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Abdin, E., Chong, S. A., Seow, E., Verma, S., Tan, K. B., & Subramaniam, M. (2019). Mapping the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores to EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores in patients with schizophrenia. Quality of Life Research, 28(1), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2037-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Martín-Fernández, J., Morey-Montalvo, M., Tomás-García, N., Martín-Ramos, E., Muñoz-García, J. C., Polentinos-Castro, E., Rodríguez-Martínez, G., Arenaza, J. C., García-Pérez, L., Magdalena-Armas, L., & Bilbao, A. (2020). Mapping analysis to predict EQ-5D-5 L utility values based on the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaires in the Spanish population suffering from lower limb osteoarthritis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01435-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures? Value Health, 17(2), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Klapproth, C. P., van Bebber, J., Sidey-Gibbons, C. J., Valderas, J. M., Leplege, A., Rose, M., & Fischer, F. (2020). Predicting EQ-5D-5L crosswalk from the PROMIS-29 profile for the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 389. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01629-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Su, J., Liu, T., Li, S., Zhao, Y., & Kuang, Y. (2020). A mapping study in mainland China: Predicting EQ-5D-5L utility scores from the psoriasis disability index. Journal of Medical Economics, 23(7), 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2020.1748636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province, China (Grant No. 2020YFS0397).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, 610500, China

    Deyu Huang

  2. Nursing Department, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

    Dingfen Zeng, Yuan Tang, Longlin Jiang & Qing Yang

Authors
  1. Deyu Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dingfen Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuan Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Longlin Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qing Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by DZ, YT and LJ. The first draft of the manuscript was written by DH and QY and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qing Yang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Sichuan Cancer Hospital (No. SCCHEC-02-2021-061).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publication

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the Figures and Tables.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, D., Zeng, D., Tang, Y. et al. Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ H&N35 to the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D for papillary thyroid carcinoma. Qual Life Res 33, 491–505 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03540-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03540-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation