Advertisement

Assessing health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: factors impacting on EORTC QLU-C10D-derived utility values

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the factors influencing EORTC QLQ-C30-derived EORTC QLU-C10D utility values across five cancer types (non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, colorectal, thyroid, and prostate cancer) and a general population sample.

Methods

Data from the Dutch population-based patient-reported outcomes following initial treatment and long-term evaluation of survivorship (PROFILES) registry collected between 2009 and 2012 were used. EORTC QLQ-C30 data were used to estimate utility values by applying the EORTC QLU-C10D instrument using Australian utility weights. Regression analyses were conducted, within and across cancer type, to examine the factors influencing utility values, including patient- and cancer-specific factors, as well as the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale/item scores.

Results

The mean utility value for the total cancer sample was 0.791 (SD 0.201), significantly lower than that from the general population (0.865, SD 0.165). Multiple myeloma patients had the lowest utility value at 0.663 (SD 0.244). Physical functioning, pain and nausea and vomiting were the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains with the greatest impact on utility values; cognitive functioning and dyspnea had the lowest impact. Of the demographic and clinical factors, unemployment for reasons other than retirement, age older than 75 years, number of comorbidities, and experience of symptoms all had a statistically significant negative impact on utility values.

Conclusions

This study is one of the first to apply the EORTC QLU-C10D to a heterogeneous group of cancer patients. Results can be used to more efficiently target care towards factors influencing HRQoL. Furthermore, it enhances our understanding of how the EORTC QLU-C10D performs across cancer types, supporting its use in cost–utility analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute,85(5), 365–376.

  2. 2.

    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.

  3. 3.

    Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1990s). A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In S. R. Walker & R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of life assessment: Key issues in the 1990s (pp. 185–195). Dordrecht: Springer.

  4. 4.

    Brazier, J., Deverill, M., & Green, C. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy,4(3), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581969900400310.

  5. 5.

    Rowen, D., Young, T., Brazier, J., & Gaugris, S. (2012). Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research,15(8), 1059–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2201.

  6. 6.

    Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernández Alava, M., Mukuria, C., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England),18(9), 1–224. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090.

  7. 7.

    Lorgelly, P. K., Doble, B., Rowen, D., & Brazier, J. (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: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,26(5), 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1443-y.

  8. 8.

    King, M. T., Costa, D. S. J., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Fayers, P. M., et al. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,25(3), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-y.

  9. 9.

    Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S. J., et al. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,25(3), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.

  10. 10.

    King, M. T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., et al. (2018). 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(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5.

  11. 11.

    Young, T., Yang, Y., Brazier, J. E., Tsuchiya, A., & Coyne, K. (2009). The first stage of developing preference-based measures: Constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,18(2), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9428-0.

  12. 12.

    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., et al. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research,14(5), 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.004.

  13. 13.

    van de Poll-Franse, L. V., Horevoorts, N., van Eenbergen, M., Denollet, J., Roukema, J. A., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2011). The patient reported outcomes following initial treatment and long term evaluation of survivorship registry: scope, rationale and design of an infrastructure for the study of physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivorship cohorts. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990),47(14), 2188–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.04.034.

  14. 14.

    de Rooij, B. H., Ezendam, N. P. M., Mols, F., Vissers, P. A. J., Thong, M. S. Y., Vlooswijk, C. C. P., et al. (2018). Cancer survivors not participating in observational patient-reported outcome studies have a lower survival compared to participants: The population-based PROFILES registry. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,27(12), 3313–3324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1979-0.

  15. 15.

    Mols, F., Husson, O., Oudejans, M., Vlooswijk, C., Horevoorts, N., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2018). Reference data of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire: Five consecutive annual assessments of approximately 2000 representative Dutch men and women. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden),57(10), 1381–1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2018.1481293.

  16. 16.

    Bergius, S., Torvinen, S., Muhonen, T., Roine, R. P., Sintonen, H., & Taari, K. (2017). Health-related quality of life among prostate cancer patients: Real-life situation at the beginning of treatment. Scandinavian Journal of Urology,51(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2016.1247293.

  17. 17.

    de Groot, S., Redekop, W. K., Versteegh, M. M., Sleijfer, S., Oosterwijk, E., Kiemeney, L., et al. (2018). Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,27(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1704-4.

  18. 18.

    Färkkilä, N., Torvinen, S., Roine, R. P., Sintonen, H., Hänninen, J., Taari, K., et al. (2014). Health-related quality of life among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients with end-stage disease. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation,23(4), 1387–1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0562-y.

  19. 19.

    Hagiwara, Y., Shiroiwa, T., Shimozuma, K., Kawahara, T., Uemura, Y., Watanabe, T., et al. (2018). Impact of adverse events on health utility and health-related quality of life in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: Results from the SELECT BC study. PharmacoEconomics,36(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0580-7.

  20. 20.

    Meng, Y., McCarthy, G., Berthon, A., & Dinet, J. (2017). Patient-reported health state utilities in metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours—An analysis based on the CLARINET study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,15(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0711-z.

  21. 21.

    Torvinen, S., Färkkilä, N., Sintonen, H., Saarto, T., Roine, R. P., & Taari, K. (2013). Health-related quality of life in prostate cancer. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden),52(6), 1094–1101. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2012.760848.

  22. 22.

    Craig, B. M., Reeve, B. B., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Pickard, A. S., & Revicki, D. A. (2014). Demographic differences in health preferences in the United States. Medical care,52(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000066.

  23. 23.

    Dolan, P. (1996). The effect of experience of illness on health state valuations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,49(5), 551–564.

  24. 24.

    Yeh, J. M., Hanmer, J., Ward, Z. J., Leisenring, W. M., Armstrong, G. T., Hudson, M. M., et al. (2016). Chronic conditions and utility-based health-related quality of life in adult childhood cancer survivors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw046.

  25. 25.

    Leslie, H. S., Mary, K. G., & Christian, W. (2011). TNM classification of malignant tumours (7th ed.). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

  26. 26.

    Sangha, O., Stucki, G., Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Katz, J. N. (2003). The Self-Administered comorbidity questionnaire: A new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis and Rheumatism,49(2), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10993.

  27. 27.

    Rubin, D. B. (2011). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Hoboken: Wiley.

  28. 28.

    Azur, M. J., Stuart, E. A., Frangakis, C., & Leaf, P. J. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations: What is it and how does it work? MPR International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research,20(1), 40–49.

  29. 29.

    Raghunathan, T. E., Lepkowski, J. M., Van Hoewyk, J., & Solenberger, P. (2001). A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Survey Methodology.,27(1), 85.

  30. 30.

    Van Buuren, S. (2007). Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Statistical Methods in Medical Research,16(3), 219.

  31. 31.

    Johnsen, A. T., Tholstrup, D., Petersen, M. A., Pedersen, L., & Groenvold, M. (2009). Health related quality of life in a nationally representative sample of haematological patients. European Journal of Haematology,83(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0609.2009.01250.x.

  32. 32.

    Mols, F., Oerlemans, S., Vos, A. H., Koster, A., Verelst, S., Sonneveld, P., et al. (2012). Health-related quality of life and disease-specific complaints among multiple myeloma patients up to 10 year after diagnosis: Results from a population-based study using the PROFILES registry. European Journal of Haematology,89(4), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0609.2012.01831.x.

  33. 33.

    Mols, F., Schoormans, D., Smit, J. W. A., Netea-Maier, R. T., Links, T. P., van der Graaf, W. T. A., et al. (2018). Age-related differences in health-related quality of life among thyroid cancer survivors compared with a normative sample: Results from the PROFILES Registry. Head & Neck,40(10), 2235–2245. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25325.

  34. 34.

    Oerlemans, S., Nijziel, M. R., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2015). Age-related differences in quality of life among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cancer,121(16), 2857–2858. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29427.

  35. 35.

    van der Poel, M. W. M., Oerlemans, S., Schouten, H. C., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2015). Elderly multiple myeloma patients experience less deterioration in health-related quality of life than younger patients compared to a normative population: A study from the population-based PROFILES registry. Annals of Hematology,94(4), 651–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-014-2264-0.

  36. 36.

    Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2016). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

  37. 37.

    McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., Costa, D. S. J., Pickard, A. S., Regier, D. A., et al. (2019). The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian valuation study and algorithm to derive cancer-specific utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM policy & practice,4(1), 2381468319842532–2381468319842532. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468319842532.

  38. 38.

    Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., et al. (2019). U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950.

  39. 39.

    Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., Nerich, V., Norman, R., Viney, R., Holzner, B., et al. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02283-w.

  40. 40.

    van de Poll-Franse, L. V., Mols, F., Gundy, C. M., Creutzberg, C. L., Nout, R. A., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., et al. (2011). Normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-sexuality items in the general Dutch population. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990),47(5), 667–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.004.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Richard De Abreu Lourenço.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This research was completed as part of a Masters research program for T van Gelder who was the recipient of expense reimbursement from the University of Technology (UTS) as part of his research placement. The following author(s) are employed by UTS: R De Abreu Lourenco, B Mulhern. R De Abreu Lourenco and B Mulhern also receive funding from Cancer Australia for the provision of health economic support services via the Cancer Research Economics Support Team.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval for the conduct of this study was provided by the University of Technology Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee under the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation Program Ethics (Ref No. 2015000135).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Gelder, T., Mulhern, B., Schoormans, D. et al. Assessing health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: factors impacting on EORTC QLU-C10D-derived utility values. Qual Life Res (2020) doi:10.1007/s11136-020-02420-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • EORTC QLU-C10D
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Utility values
  • Cancer