Dataset Information

Reference values of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L for women with non-metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis and 2 years after.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To obtain reference norms of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L, based on a population of Spanish non-metastatic breast cancer patients at diagnosis and 2 years after, according to relevant demographic and clinical characteristics.

Methods

Multicentric prospective cohort study including consecutive women aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of incident non-metastatic breast cancer from April 2013 to May 2015. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires were administered between diagnosis and beginning the therapy, and 2 years after. HRQoL differences according to age, comorbidity and stage were tested with ANOVA or Chi Square test and multivariate linear regression models.

Results

1276 patients were included, with a mean age of 58 years. Multivariate models of EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and EQ-5D-5L index at diagnosis and at 2-year follow-up show the independent association of comorbidity and tumor stage with HRQoL. The standardized multivariate regression coefficient of EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score was lower (poorer HRQoL) for women with stage II and III than for those with stage 0 at diagnosis (- 0.11 and - 0.07, p < 0.05) and follow-up (- 0.15 and - 0.10, p < 0.01). The EQ-5D-5L index indicated poorer HRQoL for women with Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 2 than comorbidity 0 both at diagnosis (- 0.13, p < 0.001) and follow-up (- 0.18, p < 0.001). Therefore, we provided the reference norms at diagnosis and at the 2-year follow-up, stratified by age, comorbidity index, and tumor stage.

Conclusion

These HRQoL reference norms can be useful to interpret the scores of women with non-metastatic breast cancer, comparing them with country-specific reference values for this population.

SUBMITTER: Miret C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10063520 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reference values of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L for women with non-metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis and 2 years after.

Miret Carme C Orive Miren M Sala Maria M García-Gutiérrez Susana S Sarasqueta Cristina C Legarreta Maria Jose MJ Redondo Maximino M Rivero Amado A Castells Xavier X Quintana José M JM Garin Olatz O Ferrer Montse M

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 20230111 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>To obtain reference norms of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L, based on a population of Spanish non-metastatic breast cancer patients at diagnosis and 2 years after, according to relevant demographic and clinical characteristics.<h4>Methods</h4>Multicentric prospective cohort study including consecutive women aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of incident non-metastatic breast cancer from April 2013 to May 2015. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires were ...[more]

PMID: 36630024

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe minimal important difference (MID) is a useful tool to interpret changes in patients' health-related quality of life. This study aims to estimate MIDs for interpreting within-patient change for both components of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire [EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) and utility index] and domains of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for cancer patients.MethodsData were obtained from the Cancer 2015 dataset, a longitudinal cohort of Australian cancer patients. Anchor-based approaches were used to estimate MIDs for the EQ-5D-5L index-based utility index [Australia and the United States (US) tariff sets], EQ-VAS scores, and the EORTC QLQ-C30. Clinical [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status] and patient-reported (items 29 and 30 of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS) anchors were assessed for appropriateness by their correlation strength. Clinical change groups (CCGs) were defined a priori for improvement and deterioration based on estimates used in previous literature. MIDs were estimated via linear regression and distribution-based methods.ResultsFor the index-based utility scores in Australia, the anchor-defined MID estimates were 0.01 to 0.06 for improvement and - 0.04 to -0.03 for deterioration, with a weighted value of 0.03 for improvement and deterioration. The EQ-VAS MID estimate was 5 points for both improvement and deterioration. For the EORTC QLQ-C30, changes of at least 3.64 (improvement) and - 4.28 (deterioration) units on the physical functioning scale, 6.31 (improvement) and - 7.11 (deterioration) units on the role functioning scale, 4.65 (improvement) and - 3.41 (deterioration) units on the emotional functioning scale, and 5.41 (improvement) and - 5.56 (deterioration) units on the social functioning scale were estimated to be meaningful.ConclusionThis study identified lower MIDs for the EQ-5D-5L utility index, EQ-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 domain scores, than those reported previously. The use of a real-world cancer-specific panel dataset may reflect smaller MID estimates that are more applicable to cancer patients in the clinical practice, rather than using MIDs that have been estimated from clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundIn oncology, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are often collected using disease-specific patient questionnaires while generic, patient-level utility data required for health economic modeling are often not collected.MethodsWe developed a mapping algorithm for multiple myeloma that relates HRQoL scores from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to a utility value from the European QoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Data were obtained from 154 multiple myeloma patients who had participated in a multicenter cohort study in the UK or Germany. All three questionnaires were administered at a single time point. Scores from all 19 domains of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 instruments were univariately tested against EQ-5D values and retained in a multivariate regression model if statistically significant. A 10-fold cross-validation model selection method was also used as an alternative testing means. Two models were developed: one based on QLQ-C30 plus QLQ-MY20 scores and one based on QLQ-C30 scores alone. Adjusted R-squared, correlation coefficients, and plots of observed versus predicted EQ-5D values were presented for both models.ResultsMapping revealed that Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, Pain, and Insomnia were significant predictors of EQ-5D utility values. Similar results were observed when QLQ-MY20 scores were excluded from the model, except that Emotional Functioning and became a significant predictor and Insomnia was no longer a significant predictor. Adjusted R-squared values were of similar magnitude with or without inclusion of QLQ-MY20 scores (0.70 and 0.69, respectively), suggesting that the EORTC QLQ-MY20 adds little in terms of predicting utility values in multiple myeloma.ConclusionsThis algorithm successfully mapped EORTC HRQoL data onto EQ-5D utility in patients with multiple myeloma. Current mapping will aid in the analysis of cost-effectiveness of novel therapies for this indication.

Project description:BackgroundThe types of outcomes measured collected in clinical studies and those required for cost-effectiveness analysis often differ. Decision makers routinely use quality adjusted life years (QALYs) to compare the benefits and costs of treatments across different diseases and treatments using a common metric. QALYs can be calculated using preference-based measures (PBMs) such as EQ-5D-3L, but clinical studies often focus on objective clinician or laboratory measured outcomes and non-preference-based patient outcomes, such as QLQ-C30. We model the relationship between the generic, preference-based EQ-5D-3L and the cancer specific quality of life questionnaire, QLQ-C30 in patients with breast cancer. This will result in a mapping that allows users to convert QLQ-C30 scores into EQ-5D-3L scores for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analysis or economic evaluation.MethodsWe use data from a randomized trial of 602 patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer provided 3766 EQ-5D-3L observations. Direct mapping using adjusted, limited dependent variable mixture models (ALDVMM) is compared to a random effects linear regression and indirect mapping using seemingly unrelated ordered probit models. EQ-5D-3L was estimated as a function of the summary scales of the QLQ-C30 and other patient characteristics.ResultsA four component mixture model outperformed other models in terms of summary fit statistics. A close fit to the observed data was observed across the range of disease severity. Simulated data from the model closely aligned to the original data and showed that mapping did not significantly underestimate uncertainty. In the simulated data, 22.15% were equal to 1 compared to 21.93% in the original data. Variance was 0.0628 in the simulated data versus 0.0693 in the original data. The preferred mapping is provided in Excel and Stata files for the ease of users.ConclusionA four component adjusted mixture model provides reliable, non-biased estimates of EQ-5D-3L from the QLQ-C30, to link clinical studies to economic evaluation of health technologies for breast cancer. This work adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating the appropriateness of mixture model based approaches in mapping.

Project description:BackgroundCost-effectiveness models require quality of life utilities calculated from generic preference-based questionnaires, such as EQ-5D. We evaluated the performance of available algorithms for QLQ-C30 conversion into EQ-5D-3L based utilities in a metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patient population and subsequently developed a mCRC specific algorithm. Influence of mapping on cost-effectiveness was evaluated.MethodsThree available algorithms were compared with observed utilities from the CAIRO3 study. Six models were developed using 5-fold cross-validation: predicting EQ-5D-3L tariffs from QLQ-C30 functional scale scores, continuous QLQ-C30 scores or dummy levels with a random effects model (RE), a most likely probability method on EQ-5D-3L functional scale scores, a beta regression model on QLQ-C30 functional scale scores and a separate equations subgroup approach on QLQ-C30 functional scale scores. Performance was assessed, and algorithms were tested on incomplete QLQ-C30 questionnaires. Influence of utility mapping on incremental cost/QALY gained (ICER) was evaluated in an existing Dutch mCRC cost-effectiveness model.ResultsThe available algorithms yielded mean utilities of 1: 0.87 ± sd:0.14,2: 0.81 ± 0.15 (both Dutch tariff) and 3: 0.81 ± sd:0.19. Algorithm 1 and 3 were significantly different from the mean observed utility (0.83 ± 0.17 with Dutch tariff, 0.80 ± 0.20 with U.K. tariff). All new models yielded predicted utilities drawing close to observed utilities; differences were not statistically significant. The existing algorithms resulted in an ICER difference of €10,140 less and €1765 more compared to the observed EQ-5D-3L based ICER (€168,048). The preferred newly developed algorithm was €5094 higher than the observed EQ-5D-3L based ICER. Disparity was explained by minimal diffences in incremental QALYs between models.ConclusionAvailable mapping algorithms sufficiently accurately predict utilities. With the commonly used statistical methods, we did not succeed in developping an improved mapping algorithm. Importantly, cost-effectiveness outcomes in this study were comparable to the original model outcomes between different mapping algorithms. Therefore, mapping can be an adequate solution for cost-effectiveness studies using either a previously designed and validated algorithm or an algorithm developed in this study.

Dataset Information

Reference values of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L for women with non-metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis and 2 years after.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Reference values of EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and EQ-5D-5L for women with non-metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis and 2 years after.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets