French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30

Abstract

Background and objective

The EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), a widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. It covers ten dimensions: physical, role functioning, social, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea and bowel problems. To allow national health preferences to be reflected, country-specific valuations are being performed through collaboration between the Multi-Attribute Utility Cancer (MAUCa) Consortium and the EORTC. The aim of this study was to determine the utility weights for health states in the French version of the QLU-C10D.

Methods

Valuations were run in a web-based setting in a general population sample of 1033 adults. Utilities were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE). Data were analyzed by conditional logistic regression and mixed logits.

Results

The sample was representative of the general French population in terms of gender and age. Dimensions with the largest impact on utility weights were, in this order: physical functioning, pain and emotional functioning. The impact on utilities was lower for role functioning, nausea, bowel problems and social functioning. The dimensions of sleep, fatigue and lacking appetite were associated with the smallest utility decrement.

Conclusion

The results of the present study provide utility weights for the QLU-C10D and offer interesting prospects, as some cancer-specific dimensions also received sizeable utility weights (nausea and bowel problems). In fact, the EQ-5D and the HUI 3 are recommended in France and commonly used for cancer-related CUA; however, both these instruments are generic. The availability of a new cancer-specific utility instrument, such as the QLU-C10D, could improve the quality and the pertinence of future CUA in oncology

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data Availability Statement

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

References

  1. 1.

    Drummond MF, Mason AR. European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:191–5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.8956.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Greenberg D, Earle C, Fang C-H, Eldar-Lissai A, Neumann PJ. When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:82–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp472.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Frederix GWJ, Severens JL, Hövels AM, Raaijmakers JAM, Schellens JHM. The cloudy crystal ball of cost-effectiveness studies. Value Health. 2013;16:1100–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada n.d. https://www.cadth.ca/. Accessed17 Sept 2019.

  5. 5.

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) n.d. https://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9.

  6. 6.

    Haute Autorité de Santé - Choices in methods for economic evaluation - A methodological guide n.d. https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/r_1499251/en/choices-in-methods-for-economic-evaluation. Accessed 17 Sept 2019.

  7. 7.

    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chevalier J, de Pouvourville G. Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0351-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Util Index Pharmacoecon. 1995;7:490–502.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Util Index Pharmacoecon. 1995;7:503–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brazier J, Dixon S. The use of condition specific outcome measures in economic appraisal. Health Econ. 1995;4:255–64.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Stolk EA, Busschbach JJV. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:363–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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;56:52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    King MT, Costa DSJ, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella DF, Fayers PM, et al. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:625–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-y.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella D, Costa DSJ, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:637–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    King MT, Viney R, Simon Pickard A, Rowen D, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, et al. Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-Specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:225–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12:1194–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00581.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mulhern B, Norman R, De Abreu LR, Malley J, Street D, Viney R. Investigating the relative value of health and social care related quality of life using a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2019;233:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies - France (INSEE) n.d. https://www.insee.fr/en/default.asp. Accessed 17 Sept 2019.

  22. 22.

    Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:903–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand SLT, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32:959–76.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Colbourn CJ, Dinitz JH. Handbook of combinatorial designs, second edition (Discrete mathematics and its applications). London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Hoboken: Wiley; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states. Health Econ. 2014;23:729–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Nay O, Béjean S, Benamouzig D, Bergeron H, Castel P, Ventelou B. Achieving universal health coverage in France: policy reforms and the challenge of inequalities. Lancet. 2016;387:2236–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00580-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Haute Autorité de Santé (French National Authority for Health) n.d. https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/r_1455081/Home-page. Accessed 20 Aug 2019.

  30. 30.

    Norman R, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rowen D, Brazier JE, Cella D, Pickard AS, et al. UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kemmler G, Gamper E, Nerich V, Norman R, Viney R, Holzner B, et al. German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02283-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ratcliffe J, Wang K, Barr C, Norman R, George S, Whitehead C. Using eye tracking technology to investigate the impact of mild cognitive impairment on preferences for EQ-5D health states: an exploratory study with older people in memory clinics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy n.d. (in press)

  33. 33.

    Whitty JA, Walker R, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e90635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090635.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Mulhern B, Norman R, Street DJ, Viney R. One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Craig BM, Rand K, Bailey H, Stalmeier PFM. Quality-adjusted life-years without constant proportionality. Value Health. 2018;21:1124–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.02.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Jonker MF, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob EW, Stolk EA. Advocating a paradigm shift in health-state valuations: the estimation of time-preference corrected QALY tariffs. Value Health. 2018;21:993–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Costet N, Le Galès C, Buron C, Kinkor F, Mesbah M, Chwalow J, et al. French cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) classification systems. Clinical and Economic Working Groups. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:245–56.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Nerich V, Saing S, Gamper EM, Kemmler G, Daval F, Pivot X, et al. Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159:407–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3924-7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Nerich V, Saing S, Gamper E-M, Holzner B, Pivot X, Viney R, et al. Critical appraisal of health-state utility values used in breast cancer-related cost-utility analyses. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164:527–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4283-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Gérard C, Fagnoni P, Vienot A, Borg C, Limat S, Daval F, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:207–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Toumi M, Jarosławski S, Chouhaid C, Fallissard B, Auquier P. Patient-reported outcomes in oncology, beyond randomized controlled trials. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2019;213:57–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01207-6_5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mouillet G, Fritzsch J, Paget-Bailly S, Pozet A, Es-Saad I, Meurisse A, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor using electronic patient-reported outcomes in daily clinical practice (QUANARIE trial): study protocol. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1085-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Prof. VN and GK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Prof. VN and Dr GK and all co-authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginie Nerich.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research project was funded by Grant Number 002-2014 of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. Professor King was supported by the Australian Government through Cancer Australia.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Medical University of Innsbruck Ethics Committee, number 20151207–1336.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 59 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nerich, V., Gamper, E.M., Norman, R. et al. French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 19, 191–202 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00598-1

Download citation