Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: a review of the literature

References

• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK (2008).
   Google Scholar
• CADTH (Canadian Association for Drugs and Techologies in Health). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. Canadian Agency For Drugs And Technologies In Health, Ottawa, Canada (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GS, O'Brien BJ, Stoddard GL. Methods for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37(1), 53–72 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21(2), 271–292 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 56(4), 317–325 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 56(1), 52–60 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C 30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 85(5), 365–376 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 11(3), 570–579 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodary C, Pezet-Langevin V, Garcia-Acosta S et al. Patient preference for either the EORTC QLQ-C30 or the FACIT Quality Of Life (QOL) measures: a study performed in patients suffering from carcinoma of an unknown primary site (CUP). Eur. J. Cancer 40(4), 521–528 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopp M, Schweigkofler H, Holzner B et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-BMT for the measurement of quality of life in bone marrow transplant recipients: a comparison. Eur. J. Haematol. 65(2), 97–103 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Overcash J, Extermann M, Parr J, Perry J, Balducci L. Validity and reliability of the FACT-G scale for use in the older person with cancer. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 24(6), 591–596 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 79 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaasa S, Bjordal K, Aaronson N et al. The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30): validity and reliability when analysed with patients treated with palliative radiotherapy. Eur. J. Cancer 31A(13–14), 2260–2263 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J et al. Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual. Life Res. 3(5), 353–364 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11(2), 215–225 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin FJ, Longworth L, Pickard AS. Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual. Life Res. 22(4), 853–874 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chuang LH, Whitehead SJ. Mapping for economic evaluation. Br. Med. Bull. 101, 1–15 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess LM, Brady WE, Havrilesky LJ et al. Comparison of methods to estimate health state utilities for ovarian cancer using quality of life data: a Gynecologic Oncology group study. Gynecol. Oncol. 128(2), 175–180 (2013).
   Google Scholar
• 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(8), 1059–1068 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Rowen D, Brazier JE, Stolk EA. Mapping onto Eq-5 D for patients in poor health. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 8, 141 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Shaw JW, Lin HW et al. A patient-based utility measure of health for clinical trials of cancer therapy based on the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. Value Health 12(6), 977–988 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Kind P, Macran S. Eliciting social preference weights for functional assessment of cancer therapy-Lung health states. Pharmacoeconomics 23(11), 1143–1153 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Ray S, Ganguli A, Cella D. Comparison of FACT- and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer. Value Health 15(2), 305–311 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras VH, Paliouras D, Niakas D. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health 12(8), 1151–1157 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard AS, Lai JS, Nickolov A. Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy – general. Value Health 10(4), 266–272 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong CK, Lam CL, Rowen D et al. Mapping the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-general or -Colorectal to SF-6D in Chinese patients with colorectal neoplasm. Value Health 15(3), 495–503 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung YB, Thumboo J, Gao F et al. Mapping the English and Chinese versions of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general to the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health 12(2), 371–376 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Leunis A, Luime JJ et al. Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D. Med. Decis. Making 32(4), 554–568 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim SH, Jo MW, Kim HJ, Ahn JH. Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D for the assessment of cancer patients. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 10, 151 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim EJ, Ko SK, Kang HY. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 to the generic EQ-5D in metastatic breast cancer patients. Qual. Life Res. 21(7), 1193–1203 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Askew RL, Swartz RJ, Xing Y et al. Mapping FACT-melanoma quality-of-life scores to EQ-5D health utility weights. Value Health 14(6), 900–906 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang RW, Isogai PK, Mittmann N et al. Derivation of utility values from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 questionnaire values in lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 5(12), 1953–1957 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Walker SR, Rosser RM ( Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, Sleep D. Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health 10(5), 408–414 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crott R, Briggs A. Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11(4), 427–434 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie L, van der Pol M. Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health 12(1), 167–171 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc. Sci. Med. 45(8), 1289–1297 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ. J. 118(525), 215–234 (2008).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 4(4), 201–208 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arora NK, Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP et al. Impact of surgery and chemotherapy on the quality of life of younger women with breast carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer 92(5), 1288–1298 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearman T. Quality of life and psychosocial adjustment in gynecologic cancer survivors. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 33 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health 12(1), 159–166 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Young TA. Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Med. Decis. Making 31(2), 281–291 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT, Costa DSJ, Aaronson NK et al. The development of an internationally-valid cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument (Maui) from the eortc core health-related quality of life (Hrqol) questionnaire, Qlq-C30. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Oncol 8, 335–335 (2012).
   Google Scholar