You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L

Lorgelly, Paula K., Doble, Brett, Rowen, Donna, Brazier, John, Ashley, David, Hayes, Theresa and Cancer 2015 investigators 2017, Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L, Quality of life research, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1163-1176, doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1443-y.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
ashley-conditionspecific-2017.pdf Published version application/pdf 676.23KB 0

Title Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L
Author(s) Lorgelly, Paula K.
Doble, Brett
Rowen, Donna
Brazier, John
Ashley, David
Hayes, Theresa
Cancer 2015 investigators
Journal name Quality of life research
Volume number 26
Issue number 5
Start page 1163
End page 1176
Total pages 14
Publisher Springer
Place of publication New York, N.Y.
Publication date 2017-05
ISSN 0962-9343
1573-2649
Summary Purpose: It has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L.

Methods: A longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs.

Results: Complete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar.

Conclusions: When comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably.
Language eng
DOI 10.1007/s11136-016-1443-y
Field of Research 111202 Cancer Diagnosis
1117 Public Health And Health Services
Socio Economic Objective 920102 Cancer and Related Disorders
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2016, The Authors
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution licence
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30091837

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: School of Medicine
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 9 Abstract Views, 2 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 10 Mar 2017, 09:32:08 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.