IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i1d10.1007_s40258-021-00682-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indirect and Direct Mapping of the Cancer-Specific EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L Utility Scores

Author

Listed:
  • Aurelie Meunier

    (PHMR Limited)

  • Alexandra Soare

    (PHMR Limited)

  • Helene Chevrou-Severac

    (Alexion Pharma GmbH)

  • Karl-Johan Myren

    (Alexion Pharma GmbH)

  • Tatsunori Murata

    (CRECON Research & Consulting Inc.)

  • Louise Longworth

    (PHMR Limited)

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to develop a response mapping algorithm to predict EQ-5D-5L utilities from European Organisation for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores and compare performance with direct mapping approaches to identify the best performing algorithm. Methods The Multi-Instrument Comparison dataset contains responses to both the EQ-5D-5L and QLQ-C30 questionnaires from 692 individuals with a broad range of cancers. Response mapping was conducted, fitting ordered logistic regressions to predict response levels for each of the five EQ-5D dimensions and utilities were predicted using the US and Japanese EQ-5D-5L value sets to test the algorithm performance. Various direct mapping models were fitted: ordinary least squares, tobit, two-part (TPM), adjusted limited dependent variable mixture and beta mixture models. Model assessment and recommendations regarding the best mapping algorithm was based on goodness-of-fit statistics, predictive ability (measures of error, distribution of predicted utilities) and in sample cross-validation. Results The response mapping model performed well in terms of predictive ability and measurement error using the US or Japanese value set, with mean absolute error ranging from 0.0708 to 0.0988, and comparably to the TPM, which was the best performing direct algorithm. Conclusion The developed mapping algorithms enable the prediction of EQ-5D-5L utilities from QLQ-C30 scores when EQ-5D-5L data have not been directly collected in clinical trials. The response mapping model offers the possibility of predicting EQ-5D-5L utility values using any national value set and can be generalised to multiple countries and oncology settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Aurelie Meunier & Alexandra Soare & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Karl-Johan Myren & Tatsunori Murata & Louise Longworth, 2022. "Indirect and Direct Mapping of the Cancer-Specific EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L Utility Scores," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 119-131, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00682-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00682-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00682-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-021-00682-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clara Mukuria & Donna Rowen & Sue Harnan & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong & Roberta Ara & John Brazier, 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, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 295-313, June.
    2. Tong Liu & Shunping Li & Min Wang & Qiang Sun & Gang Chen, 2020. "Mapping the Chinese Version of the EORTC QLQ-BR53 Onto the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D Utility Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(5), pages 537-555, October.
    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. Aileen R. Neilson & Gareth T. Jones & Gary J. Macfarlane & Ejaz MI Pathan & Paul McNamee, 2022. "Generating EQ-5D-5L health utility scores from BASDAI and BASFI: a mapping study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis using longitudinal UK registry data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1357-1369, November.
    2. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    3. Nicholas Mitsakakis & Karen E. Bremner & George Tomlinson & Murray Krahn, 2020. "Exploring the Benefits of Transformations in Health Utility Mapping," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 183-197, February.
    4. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Irwinder Kaur Chhabra & Jacqueline Hui Yi Wong & Noor Syahireen Mohammed, 2021. "Mapping PedsQL™ Generic Core Scales to EQ-5D-3L utility scores in transfusion-dependent thalassemia patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 735-747, July.
    5. Sun Sun & Erik Stenberg & Yang Cao & Lars Lindholm & Klas-Göran Salén & Karl A. Franklin & Nan Luo, 2023. "Mapping the obesity problems scale to the SF-6D: results based on the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 279-292, March.
    6. Yasuhiro Hagiwara, 2023. "Using a Sample Size Calculation Framework for Clinical Prediction Models When Developing and Selecting Mapping Algorithms Based on Linear Regression," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 992-996, October.

    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:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00682-0. 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.