Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments

References

• Integrating economic analysis into cancer clinical trials: the National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Economics Workbook. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1998;(24):1–28. PMID: 9704318.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Mason AR. European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(2):191–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolodziej M, Hoverman JR. Value-based reimbursement in oncology. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18(3 Spec No.):SP124–126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cressman S, Browman GP, Hoch JS, et al. A time-trend economic analysis of cancer drug trials. Oncologist. 2015;20(7):729–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shih YC, Halpern MT. Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean? CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(4):231–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyman GH. Economics of cancer care. J Oncol Pract. 2007;3(3):113–114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003;48(2):204–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch DW. Understanding quality-adjusted life years and their application to pharmacoeconomic research. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34(7–8):906–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, et al. Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(8):673–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopra I, Km K. A systematic review of quality of life instruments in long-term breast cancer survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, et al. Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):853–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):358–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, editors. et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Greiner W, Klose K. Valuation of health-related quality of life and utilities in health economics. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(2–3):120–125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, et al. 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 Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Ray S, Ganguli A, et al. Comparison of FACT- and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer. Value Health. 2012;15(2):305–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Németh G. Health related quality of life outcome instruments. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):S44–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith AB, Cocks K, Parry D, et al. Reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in oncology trials: a comparison of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Qual Life Res. 2014;23(3):971–976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cormier JN, Cromwell KD, Ross MI. Health-related quality of life in patients with melanoma: overview of instruments and outcomes. Dermatol Clin. 2012;30(2):245–254, viii.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Leunis A, Uyl-de Groot CA, et al. Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health. 2012;15(3):504–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady B, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, et al. Responsiveness of the EuroQol in breast cancer patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(6):479–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whynes DK. Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang R, Huang Y, Tao P, et al. Evaluation of the quality of life in patients with breast cancer at different TNM stages after standardized treatment. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2013;35(1):71–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. Can the EQ-5D detect meaningful change? a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1137–1154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQuol. [ cited 2015 Nov]. www.euroqol.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rabin R, De Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Longworth L. NICE DSU technical support document 8: an introduction to the measurement and valuation of health for NICE submissions. Report by the decision support unit. Sheffield: Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin H-W, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):365–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(6):369–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uyl-de Groot CA, Rutten FF, Bonsel GJ. Measurement and valuation of quality of life in economic appraisal of cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(1):111–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, et al. A review of the progress towards developing health-related quality-of-life instruments for international clinical studies and outcomes research. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;10(4):336–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang H-C, Chuang L, Shun S-C, et al. Validation of EQ-5D in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(10):1279–1286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aburub AS, Gagnon B, Rodriguez AM, et al. Using a personalized measure (Patient Generated Index (PGI)) to identify what matters to people with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(1):437–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Young T, Brazier J, et al. Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1059–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin F-J, Longworth L, Pickard AS. Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(4):853–874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teckle P, Peacock S, McTaggart-Cowan H, et al. The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallop K, Kerr C, Simmons S, et al. A qualitative evaluation of the validity of published health utilities and generic health utility measures for capturing health-related quality of life (HRQL) impact of differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) at different treatment phases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(2):325–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tromme I, Devleesschauwer B, Beutels P, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with melanoma expressed as utilities and disability weights. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171(6):1443–1450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorn JC, Noble SM, Hollingworth W. Methodological developments in randomized controlled trial-based economic evaluations. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(6):843–856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grutters JP, Joore MA, Wiegman EM, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients surviving non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax. 2010;65(10):903–907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jönsson B, et al. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1073–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Lucioni C, et al. Quality of life and utility in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Quality-of-life Study Group of the Master 2 Project in Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(8):855–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farkkila N, Torvinen S, Roine RP, et al. Health-related quality of life among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients with end-stage disease. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(4):1387–1394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akakura K, Matsuzaki K, Kobayashi T, et al. Evaluation of utility index of quality of life (QOL) in prostate cancer patients: comparison of QOL utility index EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and visual analogue scale (VAS) with health-related QOL questionnaires SF-36 and EPIC. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi. 2011;102(1):9–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheville AL, Almoza M, Courmier JN, et al. A prospective cohort study defining utilities using time trade-offs and the Euroqol-5D to assess the impact of cancer-related lymphedema. Cancer. 2010;116(15):3722–3731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norum J. Quality of life (QoL) measurement in economical analysis in cancer. Oncol Rep. 1996;3(4):787–791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tramontano AC, Schrag DL, Malin JK, et al. Catalog and comparison of societal preferences (utilities) for lung cancer health states: results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(3):371–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matter-Walstra K, Klingbiel D, Szucs T, et al. Using the EuroQol EQ-5D in swiss cancer patients, which value set should be applied? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:591–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tordrup D, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Responsiveness of the Eq-5d to clinical change: is the patient experience adequately represented?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):10–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whynes DK. Does the correspondence between EQ-5D health state description and VAS score vary by medical condition? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras VH, Paliouras D, et al. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1151–1157.
   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. 2009;12(1):167–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Lambin P, et al. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PF, Peerenboom L, Langenhoff BS, et al. Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(7):1247–1253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahn M, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, et al. Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(3):509–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvam AK, Fayers PM, Wisloff F. Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2011;87(4):330–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagberg LM, Jakola AS, Solheim O. Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: what is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference? Qual Life Res. 2014;23(5):1427–1434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee S-I, et al. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1065–1073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, et al. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45(3):259–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey H, Kind P. Preliminary findings of an investigation into the relationship between national culture and EQ-5D value sets. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(8):1145–1154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korfage IJ, De Koning HJ, Habbema JD, et al. Side-effects of treatment for localized prostate cancer: are they valued differently by patients and healthy controls? BJU Int. 2007;99(4):801–806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, et al. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767–779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little MH, Reitmeir P, Peters A, et al. The impact of differences between patient and general population EQ-5D-3L values on the mean tariff scores of different patient groups. Value Health. 2014;17(4):364–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullenayegum EM, Perampaladas K, Gaebel K, et al. Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection? Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(8):847–855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, et al. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. Bmj. 2009;339:b2688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;(4)(4):293–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson TR, Birks Y, Alexander DJ. Pitfalls in the interpretation of standardised quality of life instruments for individual patients? A qualitative study in colorectal cancer. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1879–1888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(5):278–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Lin HW, Knight SJ, et al. Proxy assessment of health-related quality of life in african american and white respondents with prostate cancer: perspective matters. Med Care. 2009;47(2):176–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K, et al. The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S27–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matter-Walstra K, al. E Health economic analysis of the randomized multicenter phase II trial SAKK 77/08: sorafenib with or without everolimus in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ann Oncol. 2014;25(suppl 4):iv357–iv360. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu341
   Google Scholar
• Matter-Walstra K, Bigler M, Schwenkglenks M, et al. Health economic evaluation of: bevacizumab plus paclitaxel vs. bevacizumab plus metronomic cyclophosphamide and capecitabine as first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: A multicenter, randomized phase III trial - SAKK 24/09. Cancer Res. 2015;75(suppl 9). Abstract no. P1-10-06. Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 Dec 9–13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR.
   Google Scholar
• EuroQol G. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Does adjusting for health-related quality of life matter in economic evaluations of cancer-related interventions? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(1):113–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar