IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v5y2021i4d10.1007_s41669-021-00280-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimation of Health-Related Utilities for 177Lu-DOTATATE in GEP-NET Patients Using Utilities Mapped from EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L and QLU-C10D Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Ioana-Alexandra Soare

    (PHMR Limited)

  • Oscar Leeuwenkamp

    (Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis company)

  • Louise Longworth

    (PHMR Limited)

Abstract

Background Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NET) are a rare, life-threatening type of cancer. The survival benefit of 177Lu-DOTATATE has been demonstrated in GEP-NET patients. Health technology assessment bodies require data on health-related utility impacts of treatment. A cancer-specific instrument, EORTC QLQ-C30, was used to collect the data for 177Lu-DOTATATE within clinical studies, but utility-based instruments were not included. Objective The main aim of this study was to compare EQ-5D-3L and QLU-C10D utilities obtained from EORTC QLQ-C30 using two different approaches. A secondary aim was to analyse the EQ-5D-3L and QLU-C10D utilities of patients treated with 177Lu-DOTATATE versus best supportive care. A supplementary aim was to evaluate the effect of 177Lu-DOTATATE on patients’ health-related utility over time. Methods Three datasets were used for the analysis. NETTER-1 is a clinical trial, whilst ERASMUS and Guy’s and St. Thomas (GStT) are real-world datasets. Two mapping algorithms (response mapping and ordinary least square regression) were applied to generate EQ-5D-3L utilities from EORTC QLQ-C30. An algorithm was used to obtain QLU-C10D utilities from EORTC QLQ-C30. Results In all studies, EQ-5D-3L utilities were higher than QLU-C10D utilities at most time points measured, although the magnitude of the differences was small. In NETTER-1, EQ-5D-3L and QLU-C10D utilities were higher in the 177Lu-DOTATATE arm compared with the octreotide long-acting release (LAR) arm, overall and pre-progression. In all studies, patients’ health-related utilities seem to be maintained over time. Conclusion There were small differences between EQ-5D-3L and QLU-C10D utilities, but these did not translate to relative differences over time or between groups. In NETTER-1, patients in the 177Lu-DOTATATE arm had higher health-related utilities than patients in the octreotide LAR arm. Health-related utility may at least remain maintained in patients with GEP-NET receiving 177Lu-DOTATATE.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioana-Alexandra Soare & Oscar Leeuwenkamp & Louise Longworth, 2021. "Estimation of Health-Related Utilities for 177Lu-DOTATATE in GEP-NET Patients Using Utilities Mapped from EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L and QLU-C10D Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 715-725, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00280-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00280-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-021-00280-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-021-00280-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2010. "Preference‐based condition‐specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 125-129, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Louise Longworth & Donna Fountain & Jeshika Singh & Ismail Azzabi & Glynn Owen & Ulf Lundstam & Shaji Sebastian, 2019. "Elicitation of Health-Related Utility in Perianal Fistula in Crohn’s Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(3), pages 339-348, June.
    2. Wijnen, Ben F.M. & Mosweu, Iris & Majoie, Marian H.J.M. & Ridsdale, Leone & de Kinderen, Reina J.A. & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & McCrone, Paul, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106170, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    4. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    5. Matthijs Versteegh, 2016. "Impact on the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of Using Alternatives to EQ-5D in a Markov Model for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1133-1144, November.
    6. Martijn S Visser & Sankha Amarakoon & Tom Missotten & Reinier Timman & Jan J Busschbach, 2017. "SF-6D utility values for the better- and worse-seeing eye for health states based on the Snellen equivalent in patients with age-related macular degeneration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-9, February.
    7. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    8. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Colin Green & Elizabeth Goodwin & Annie Hawton, 2017. "“Naming and Framing†: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 703-714, August.
    10. Ben F. M. Wijnen & Iris Mosweu & Marian H. J. M. Majoie & Leone Ridsdale & Reina J. A. Kinderen & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Paul McCrone, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 861-870, July.
    11. Koonal K. Shah & Bryan Bennett & Andrew Lenny & Louise Longworth & John E. Brazier & Mark Oppe & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "Adapting preference-based utility measures to capture the impact of cancer treatment-related symptoms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1301-1309, November.
    12. Yaling Yang & John E. Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey A. Young, 2011. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index for a 5-Dimensional Health State Classification for Asthma Derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 281-291, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00280-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.