[en] BACKGROUND: The aim was to investigate the relative validity of the preference-based measure EORTC QLU-C10D in comparison with the EQ-5D-3L in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. METHODS: We used data from an international multicentre, observational cohort study of MDS patients. Baseline EORTC QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L scores were used and index scores calculated for Italy, Australia, and the UK. Criterion validity was established by Spearman and intraclass correlations (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Construct validity was established by the instruments' ability to discriminate known groups, i.e. groups whose health status is expected to differ. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 619 MDS patients (61.1% male; median age 73.8 years). Correlations between theoretically corresponding domains were largely higher than between unrelated domains. ICCs and Bland-Altman plots indicated moderate to good criterion validity. Ceiling effects were lower for the QLU-C10D (4.7%) than for the EQ-5D-3L (22.6%). The EQ-5D-3L failed to discriminate known-groups in two and the QLU-C10D in one of the comparisons; the QLU-C10D's efficiency in doing so was higher in clinical known-groups. Results were comparable between the countries. CONCLUSIONS: The QLU-C10D may be suitable to generate health utilities for economic research in MDS. Responsiveness and minimal important differences need yet to be established.
Disciplines :
Hematology
Author, co-author :
Gamper, Eva M.
Cottone, Francesco
Sommer, Kathrin
Norman, Richard
King, Madeleine
Breccia, Massimo
Caocci, Giovanni
Patriarca, Andrea
Palumbo, Giuseppe A.
Stauder, Reinhard
Niscola, Pasquale
Platzbecker, Uwe
Caers, Jo ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Département des sciences cliniques
Malcovati, L, Hellström-Lindberg, E, Bowen, D, Adès, L, Cermak, J, del Cañizo, C, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary myelodysplastic syndromes in adults: recommendations from the European LeukemiaNet. Blood Vol 122 (2013), 2943–2964 edn.
Rollison, DE, Howlader, N, Smith, MT, Strom, SS, Merritt, WD, Ries, LA, et al. Epidemiology of myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myeloproliferative disorders in the United States, 2001-2004, using data from the NAACCR and SEER programs. Blood 112 (2008), 45–52.
Germing, U, Strupp, C, Kundgen, A, Bowen, D, Aul, C, Haas, R, et al. No increase in age-specific incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes. Haematologica 89 (2004), 905–910.
Avgerinou, C, Alamanos, Y, Zikos, P, Lampropoulou, P, Melachrinou, M, Labropoulou, V, et al. The incidence of myelodysplastic syndromes in Western Greece is increasing. Ann Hematol 92 (2013), 877–887.
Greenberg, P, Cox, C, LeBeau, MM, Fenaux, P, Morel, P, Sanz, G, et al. International scoring system for evaluating prognosis in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 89 (1997), 2079–2088.
Greenberg, PL, Tuechler, H, Schanz, J, Sanz, G, Garcia-Manero, G, Sole, F, et al. Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 120 (2012), 2454–2465.
de Witte, T, Bowen, D, Robin, M, Malcovati, L, Niederwieser, D, Yakoub-Agha, I, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for MDS and CMML: recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood 129 (2017), 1753–1762 edn.
Fenaux, P, Haase, D, Sanz, GF, Santini, V, Buske, C, Myelodysplastic syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25:Suppl 3 (2014), 57–69 iii.
EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16 (1990), 199–208.
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 85 (1993), 365–376.
Stauder, R, Lambert, J, Desruol-Allardin, S, Savre, I, Gaugler, L, Stojkov, I, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in studies of myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia: literature review and landscape analysis. Eur J Haematol 104:5 (2020), 476–487.
Drummond, M, Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3 edn., 2005, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dolan, P, Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35 (1997), 1095–1108.
Rowen, D, Zouraq, IA, Chevrou-Severac, H, Bv, Hout, International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics 35 (2017), 11–19.
Bharmal, M, Thomas, J, Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health, 9(4), 2006.
Rowen, D, Brazier, J, Ara, R, Azzabi Zouraq, I, The role of condition-specific preference-based measures in health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics 35:S1 (2017), 33–41.
Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Tsuchiya, A, Busschbach, J, A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics 13 (2004), 873–884.
Conner-Spady, BL, Marshall, DA, Bohm, E, Dunbar, MJ, Loucks, L, Al Khudairy, A, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res 24 (2015), 1775–1784.
Janssen, MF, Pickard, AS, Golicki, D, Gudex, C, Niewada, M, Scalone, L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 22 (2013), 1717–1727.
Sullivan, PW, Lawrence, WF, Ghushchyan, V, A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 43 (2005), 736–749.
Rowen, D, Young, T, Brazier, J, Gaugris, S, Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health 15 (2012), 1059–1068.
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 20 (2011), 1727–1736.
Kim, SH, Kim, HJ, Lee, SI, Jo, MW, Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res 21 (2012), 1065–1073.
Janssen, MF, Birnie, E, Haagsma, JA, Bonsel, GJ, Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11 (2008), 275–284.
van Dongen-Leunis, A, Redekop, W, Uyl-de Groot, C, Which questionnaire should be used to measure quality-of-life utilities in patients with acute leukemia? An evaluation of the validity and interpretability of the EQ-5D-5L and preference-based questionnaires derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 19:6 (2016), 834–843.
Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Deverill, M, The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21 (2002), 271–292.
Hanmer, J, Dewitt, B, Yu, L, Tsevat, J, Roberts, M, Revicki, D, et al. Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system. PloS one, 13(7), 2018, 13.
King, MT, Costa, DS, 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 25 (2016), 625–636.
King, MT, Viney, R, Simon Pickard, A, Rowen, D, Aaronson, NK, 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 36 (2018), 225–238.
Wee, H-L, Machin, D, Loke, W-C, Li, S-C, Cheung, Y-B, Luo, N, et al. Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value Health 10 (2007), 256–265.
Craig, D, McDaid, C, Fonseca, T, Stock, C, Duffy, S, Woolacott, N, Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? An initial review of current practice. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 13:62 (2009), 1–71.
Efficace, F, Cottone, F, Oswald, L, Cella, D, Patriarca, A, Niscola, P, et al. The IPSS-R more accurately captures fatigue severity of newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic syndromes compared with the IPSS index. Leukemia 34:9 (2020), 2451–2459.
Efficace, F, Gaidano, G, Breccia, M, Voso, MT, Cottone, F, Angelucci, E, et al. Prognostic value of self-reported fatigue on overall survival in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: a multicentre, prospective, observational, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 16 (2015), 1506–1514.
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 85 (1993), 365–376.
Yellen, SB, Cella, DF, Webster, K, Blendowski, C, Kaplan, E, Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Sympt Manage 13 (1997), 63–74.
Degner, L, Sloan, J, Venkatesh, P, The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res, 29(3), 1997.
Scalone, L, Cortesi, PA, Ciampichini, R, Belisari, A, D'Angiolella, LS, Cesana, G, et al. Italian population-based values of EQ-5D health states. Value Health 16 (2013), 814–822.
Gamper, E, King, M, Norman, R, Efficace, F, Cottone, F, Holzner, B, Kemmler, G, EORTC QLU-C10D Value Sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Qual Life Res 29 (2020), 2485–2495.
Terwee, C, Bot, S, de Boer, M, van der Windt, D, Knol, D, Dekker, J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol, 60(1), 2007.
Hinkle, D, Wiersma, W, Jurs, S, Applied Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. 5 edn., 2003, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cichetti, DV, Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed andstandardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6 (1994), 284–290.
Bland, JM, Altman, DG, Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8 (1999), 135–160.
Coretti, S, Ruggeri, M, McNamee, P, The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 14(2), 2014.
Efficace, F, Cottone, F, Abel, G, Niscola, P, Gaidano, G, Bonnetain, F, et al. Patient-reported outcomes enhance the survival prediction of traditional disease risk classifications: an international study in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer 124 (2018), 1251–1259.
Sorror, ML, Maris, MB, Storb, R, Baron, F, Sandmaier, BM, Maloney, DG, et al. Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT. Blood 106:8 (2005), 2912–2919.
Fenaux, P, Platzbecker, U, Ades, L, How we manage adults with myelodysplastic syndrome. Br J Haematol(6), 2020, 189.
Platzbecker, U, Treatment of MDS. Blood(10), 2019, 133.
Pfeilstöcker, M, Tuechler, H, Sanz, G, Schanz, J, Garcia-Manero, G, Solé, F, et al. Time-dependent changes in mortality and transformation risk in MDS. Blood(7), 2016, 128.
Malcovati, L, Germing, U, Kuendgen, A, Della Porta, MG, Pascutto, C, Invernizzi, R, et al. Time-dependent prognostic scoring system for predicting survival and leukemic evolution in myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol(23), 2007, 25.
Cocks, K, King, MT, Velikoa, G, Martin St-James, M, Fayers, PM, Brown, J, Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. J Clin Oncol(1), 2011, 29.
Cohen, J, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2 edn, 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
Liang, MH, Larson, MG, Cullen, KE, Schwartz, JA, Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthr Rheumatism 28 (1985), 542–547.
Gamper, EM, Holzner, B, King, MT, Norman, R, Viney, R, Nerich, V, et al. Test-retest reliability of discrete choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D Health States. Value Health 21 (2018), 958–966.
Norman, R, Kemmler, G, Viney, R, Pickard, AS, Gamper, E, Holzner, B, et al. Order of presentation of dimensions does not systematically bias utility weights from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 19 (2016), 1033–1038.
Norman, R, Viney, R, Aaronson, NK, Brazier, JE, Cella, D, Costa, DS, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res 25:3 (2016), 637–649.
Kyriaki, M, Eleni, T, Efi, P, Ourania, K, Vassilios, S, Lambros, V, The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) in terminally ill cancer patients under palliative care: validity and reliability in a Hellenic sample. International journal of cancer, 94(1), 2001.
EQ-5D-3L UserGuide 2021 Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides.
Rowen, D, Brazier, J, Young, T, Gaugris, S, Craig, BM, King, MT, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 14 (2021), 721–731.
NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Process and methods guides. 2013, The social care guidance manual.
Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committe (PBAC) (Version 5.0) 2021 http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-guidelines/PBAC4.3.2.pdf.
Ara, R, Brazier, JE, Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 13 (2010), 509–518.
