Author
Listed:
- Simone Seyringer
(Department for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine,University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck
Johannes Kepler University Linz
Medical University of Innsbruck)
- Micha J. Pilz
(Department for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine,University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck)
- Andrew Bottomley
(European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer)
- Madeleine T. King
(University of Sydney)
- Richard Norman
(Curtin University)
- Eva M. Gamper
(Department for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine,University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck
Medical University of Innsbruck)
Abstract
Introduction Many health economic evaluations rely on the validity of the utility measurement for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). While generic utility measures perform well in HRQoL assessments of many diseases and patient populations, appropriateness for cancer-specific disease burdens needs attention and condition-specific measures could be a viable option. This study assessed the clinical validity of the cancer-specific EORTC QLU-C10D, a utility scoring algorithm for the EORTC QLQ-C30, in patients with glioblastoma. We expect the EORTC QLU-C10D to be sensitive and responsive in glioblastoma patients. Furthermore, we compared its statistical efficiency with the generic utility measure EQ-5D-3L. Methods We used data from a multi-center randomized controlled trial (NCT00689221) with patients from 146 study sites in 25 countries. Both, the QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L, had been administered at seven assessment points together. Utilities of both measures were calculated for four country value set (Australia, Canada, UK, USA). Ceiling effects, agreement (Bland–Altman plots (BA), intra-class correlation (ICC)), were calculated to analyze construct validity. Sensitivity to known-groups (performance status; global health) and responsiveness to changes (progressive vs. non-progressive; stable vs. improved or deteriorated HRQoL) were investigated for clinical validity. Relative Efficiency (RE) was calculated to compare statistical efficiency of both utility measures. Results 435 patients were included at baseline and six subsequent time points (median timeframe 497 days). QLU-C10D country value set showed negligible ceiling effects ( 0.750). BA indicated that differences between both utility measures increased with deteriorating health states. While the QLU-C10D was more sensitive to global health groups (RE > 1.2), the EQ-5D-3L was more sensitive to performance status groups (RE 1.4) favored QLU-C10D in 18 of 24 (75%) and 20 of 24 (83%) comparisons with the EQ-5D-3L respectively. Responsiveness to overall HRQoL change (RE > 3.4) also favored the QLU-C10D. Conclusion Our results indicate that the QLU-C10D is a valid utility measure to assess HRQoL in patients with glioblastoma. This facilitates the investigation of HRQoL profiles and utilities in this patient population by administering a single questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-C30. Efficiency analyses point to higher statistical power of the QLU-C10D compared to the EQ-5D-3L.
Suggested Citation
Simone Seyringer & Micha J. Pilz & Andrew Bottomley & Madeleine T. King & Richard Norman & Eva M. Gamper, 2025.
"Cancer-specific utility: clinical validation of the EORTC QLU-C10D in patients with glioblastoma,"
The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(5), pages 721-733, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01729-4
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01729-4
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01729-4. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.