Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients



Khan, Iftekhar, Morris, Steve, Pashayan, Nora, Matata, Bashir ORCID: 0000-0003-2896-8059, Bashir, Zahid and Maguirre, Joe
(2016) Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients. HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 14 (1). 60-.

[img] Text
Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript

Download (3MB)

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>Several mapping algorithms have been published with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 for estimating EQ-5D-3L utilities. However, none are available with EQ-5D-5L. Moreover, a comparison between mapping algorithms in the same set of patients has not been performed for these two instruments simultaneously. In this prospective data set of 100 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, we investigate three mapping algorithms using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L and compare their performance.<h4>Methods</h4>A prospective non-interventional cohort of 100 NSCLC patients were followed up for 12 months. EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and EORTC-QLQ-C30 were assessed monthly. EQ-5D-5L was completed at least 1 week after EQ-5D-3L. A random effects linear regression model, a beta-binomial (BB) and a Limited Variable Dependent Mixture (LVDM) model were used to determine a mapping algorithm between EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and QLQ-C30. Simulation and cross validation and other statistical measures were used to compare the performances of the algorithms.<h4>Results</h4>Mapping from the EQ-5D-5L was better: lower AIC, RMSE, MAE and higher R(2) were reported with the EQ-5D-5L than with EQ-5D-3L regardless of the functional form of the algorithm. The BB model proved to be more useful for both instruments: for the EQ-5D-5L, AIC was -485, R(2) of 75 %, MAE of 0.075 and RMSE was 0.092. This was -385, 69 %, 0.099 and 0.113 for EQ-5D-3L respectively. The mean observed vs. predicted utilities were 0.572 vs. 0.577 and 0.515 vs. 0.523 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L respectively, for OLS; for BB, these were 0.572 vs. 0.575 and 0.515 vs. 0.518 respectively and for LVDMM 0.532 vs 0.515 and 0.569 vs 0.572 respectively. Less over-prediction at poorer health states was observed with EQ-5D-5L.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The BB mapping algorithm is confirmed to offer a better fit for both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. The results confirm previous and more recent results on the use of BB type modelling approaches for mapping. It is recommended that in studies where EQ-5D utilities have not been collected, an EQ-5D-5L mapping algorithm is used.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Humans, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Linear Models, Cohort Studies, Follow-Up Studies, Prospective Studies, Health Status, Algorithms, Models, Theoretical, Quality of Life, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Middle Aged, Female, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 23 Feb 2017 14:55
Last Modified: 19 Jan 2023 07:15
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-016-0455-1
Related URLs:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3006025