Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To compare measurement properties of the utility scores derived from various country-specific value sets of EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EORTC QLU-C10D (10D) in gastric cancer patient.

Methods

The study used cross-sectional data of 243 Chinese gastric cancer patients who completed both 5L and EORTC QLQ-C30. Utility score of QLU-C10D is generated from all the available QLU-C10D value sets currently; the score of 5L is derived from the corresponding 5L value sets for the countries with both the 5L and QLU-C10D value sets and the Chinese 5L value set. Convergent validity was evaluated by testing their correlations with the VAS score. Known-group validity was assessed by comparing the utility scores the patients with different severities. Their relative efficiency (RE) was also compared.

Results

Correlation coefficient of 5L and QLU-C10D utility scores with VAS ranged from 0.54 to 0.59, and 0.55 to 0.63, respectively. Both the utility scores were in general able to discriminate the patients with different severities; and 5L utility score had higher RE in the majority of known-groups.

Conclusion

EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D utility scores were different and, thus, non-swappable. They possess similar convergent validity and known-group validity; while EQ-5D-5L scores may have better discriminative power.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Weinstein, M.C., Torrance, G., McGuire, A.: QALYs: the basics. Value Health 12(Suppl 1), S5-9 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Devlin, N.J., Brooks, R.: EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 15(2), 127–137 (2017)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-3L user guide.Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. [cited 2021 Dec 23]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2015.pdf

  4. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-5L user guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. [cited 2021 Dec 23]. Available from: http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/UserGuide_EQ-5D-5L.pdf

  5. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-5L/valuation. [cited 2021 Dec 23]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/valuation-standard-value-sets/

  6. Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., et al.: Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health 20, 662–669 (2017)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aaronson, N.K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N.J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S.B., de Haes, J.C., 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 85(5), 365–376 (1993)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. King, M.T., Costa, D.S., Aaronson, N.K., Brazier, J.E., Cella, D.F., Fayers, P.M., Grimison, P., Janda, M., Kemmler, G., Norman, R., Pickard, A.S., Rowen, D., Velikova, G., Young, T.A., Viney, R.: QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 25(3), 625–636 (2016)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Versteegh, M.M., et al.: Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health. 15(3), 504–513 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gamper, E.M., Cottone, F., Sommer, K., Norman, R., King, M., Breccia, M., Caocci, G., Patriarca, A., Palumbo, G.A., Stauder, R., Niscola, P., Platzbecker, U., Caers, J., Vignetti, M., Efficace, F.: The EORTC QLU-C10D was more efficient in detecting clinical known group differences in myelodysplastic syndromes than the EQ-5D-3L. J Clin Epidemiol 137, 31–44 (2021)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim, H., Cook, G., Goodall, S., Liew, D.: Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysis. Pharmacoecon Open 5(3), 459–467 (2021)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Norman, R., Cronin, P., Viney, R.: A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11(3), 287–298 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Johnson, J.A., Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study group: A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 54(1), 98–105 (2016)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andrade, L.F., Ludwig, K., Goni, J.M.R., Oppe, M., de Pouvourville, G.: A French value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics 38(4), 413–425 (2020)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ludwig, K., von der Schulenburg, J.M.G., Greiner, W.: German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics 36(6), 663–674 (2018)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Versteegh, M.M., Vermeulen, K.M., Evers, S.M.A.A., de Wit, G.A., Prenger, R., Stolk, E.A.: Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health 19(4), 343–352 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Golicki, D., Jakubczyk, M., Graczyk, K., Niewada, M.: Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states in Poland: the first EQ-VT-based study in central and eastern Europe. Pharmacoeconomics 37(9), 1165–1176 (2019)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Devlin, N.J., Shah, K.K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., van Hout, B.: Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 27(1), 7–22 (2018)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pickard, A.S., Law, E.H., Jiang, R., Pullenayegum, E., Shaw, J.W., Xie, F., Oppe, M., Boye, K.S., Chapman, R.H., Gong, C.L., Balch, A., Busschbach, J.J.V.: United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states using an international protocol. Value Health 22(8), 931–941 (2019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. King, M.T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N.K., Brazier, J.E., Cella, D., Costa, D.S.J., Fayers, P.M., Kemmler, G., McTaggart-Cowen, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Peacock, S., Street, D.J., Young, T.A., Norman, R., MAUCa consortium: 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 36(2), 225–238 (2018)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gamper, E.M., King, M.T., Norman, R., Efficace, F., Cottone, F., Holzner, B., Kemmler, G., European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) quality of life group: EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Qual Life Res 29(9), 2485–2495 (2020)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M.T., Norman, R., Costa, D.S.J., Pickard, A.S., Regier, D.A., Viney, R., Peacock, S.J.: The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Canadian valuation study and algorithm to derive cancer-specific utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy Pract 4(1), 2381468319842532 (2019)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nerich, V., Gamper, E.M., Norman, R., King, M., Holzner, B., Viney, R., Kemmler, G.: French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 19(2), 191–202 (2021)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., Nerich, V., Norman, R., Viney, R., Holzner, B., King, M., European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) quality of life group: German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 28(12), 3197–3211 (2019)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I.M., Gamper, E., Norman, R., Holzner, B., King, M., Kemmler, G., European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) quality of life group: Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Qual Life Res 30(7), 2009–2019 (2021)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J.E., Cella, D., Pickard, A.S., Street, D.J., Viney, R., Revicki, D., King, M.T., European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) quality of life group and the MAUCa consortium: U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ 28(12), 1385–1401 (2019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Revicki, D.A., King, M.T., Viney, R., Pickard, A.S., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Shaw, J.W., Müller, F., Norman, R.: United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Med Decis Making. 41(4), 485–501 (2021)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hays, R.D., Anderson, R., Revicki, D.: Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 2, 441–449 (1993)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Xie, S., Wu, J., He, X., Chen, G., Brazier, J.E.: Do discrete choice experiments approaches perform better than time trade-off in eliciting health state utilities? Evidence from SF-6Dv2 in China. Value Health. 23(10), 1391–1399 (2020)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof. Xie Feng from Mcmaster University, Canada for providing the full value set of EQ-5D-5L for Canada.

Funding

The study was funded by the Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project of Public Health (Grant Number: GWV-10.1-XK14); and the General Project of Natural Science Foundation of Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province. Grant/Award Number: 20KJB320027.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Chen-Wei Pan, Jun-Yi He, and Yan-Bo Zhu have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China

    Chen-Wei Pan

  2. School of Public Health, Fudan University, 130 Dong An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Jun-Yi He & Pei Wang

  3. Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment, National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (Fudan University), Shanghai, China

    Jun-Yi He & Pei Wang

  4. Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China

    Yan-Bo Zhu

  5. Medical Education and Training Department, Gusu School, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical UniversitySuzhou Municipal HospitalNanjing Medical University, Suzhou, China

    Chun-Hua Zhao

  6. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Nan Luo

Authors
  1. Chen-Wei Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun-Yi He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan-Bo Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chun-Hua Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nan Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PW had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. PW and CP designed the study. CP collected data for the study. JH did statistical analysis and prepared all tables. PW and JH wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pei Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Soochow University. All participants gave informed written consent.

Consent for publication

All the authors have reviewed the final manuscript and consented for publication.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 45 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor 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

Pan, CW., He, JY., Zhu, YB. et al. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients. Eur J Health Econ 24, 885–893 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01523-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01523-0

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation