General population normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 by age, sex, and health condition for the French general population.

BACKGROUND: General population normative values for the widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure EORTC QLQ-C30 support the interpretation of trial results and HRQoL of patients in clinical practice. Here, we provide sex-, age- and health condition-specific normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the French general population. METHODS: French general population data was collected in an international EORTC project. Online panels with quota samples were used to recruit sex and age groups. Number and type of comorbidities were assessed. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate general population values for each QLQ-C30 scale, separately for sex, age, and presence of one- and more chronic health conditions. A multivariate linear regression model has been developed to allow estimating the effect of sex, age, and the presence for one- and more chronic health conditions on EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Data was weighted according to United Nation statistics adjusting for the proportion of sex and age groups. RESULTS: In total, 1001 French respondents were included in our analyses. The weighted mean age was 47.9 years, 514 (51.3%) participants were women, and 497 (52.2%) participants reported at least one health condition. Men reported statistically significant better scores for Emotional Functioning (+9.6 points, p = 0.006) and Fatigue (-7.8 point; p = 0.04); women reported better profiles for Role Functioning (+8.7 points; p = 0.008) and Financial Difficulty (-7.8 points, p = 0.011). According to the regression model, the sex effect was statistically significant in eight scales; the effect of increasing age had a statistically significant effect on seven of the 15 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. The sex- and age effect varied in its direction across the various scales. The presence of health conditions showed a strong negative effect on all scales. CONCLUSION: This is the first publication of detailed French normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30. It aims to support the interpretation of HRQoL profiles in French cancer populations. The strong impact of health conditions on QLQ-C30 scores highlights the importance of considering the impact of comorbidities in cancer patients when interpreting HRQoL data.

Cancer-Specific Health Utilities: Evaluation of Core Measurement Properties of the EORTC QLU-C10D in Lung Cancer Patients-Data from Four Multicentre LUX-Lung Trials, Applying Six Country Tariffs.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis generally requires valid preference-based measures (PBMs) to assess the utility of patient health. While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs may capture additional aspects of health relevant for certain patient populations. This study investigates the construct and concurrent criterion validity of the cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from four multicentre LUX-Lung trials, all of which had administered the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the EQ-5D-3L. We applied six country-specific value sets (Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom) to both instruments. Criterion validity was assessed via correlations between the instruments' utility scores. Correlations of divergent and convergent domains and Bland-Altman plots investigated construct validity. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed. RESULTS: The comparison of the EORTC QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L produced homogenous results for five of the six country tariffs. High correlations of utilities (r > 0.7) were found for all country tariffs except for the Netherlands. Moderate to high correlations of converging domain pairs (r from 0.472 to 0.718) were found with few exceptions, such as the Social Functioning-Usual Activities domain pair (max. r = 0.376). For all but the Dutch tariff, the EORTC QLU-C10D produced consistently lower utility values compared to the EQ-5D-3L (x̄ difference from - 0.082 to 0.033). Floor and ceiling effects were consistently lower for the EORTC QLU-C10D (max. 4.67% for utilities). CONCLUSIONS: The six country tariffs showed good psychometric properties for the EORTC QLU-C10D in lung cancer patients. Criterion and construct validity was established. The QLU-C10D showed superior measurement precision towards the upper and lower end of the scale compared to the EQ-5D-3L, which is important when cost-utility analysis seeks to measure health change across the severity spectrum.

The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis typically relies on preference-based measures (PBMs). While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs can capture aspects relevant for certain patient populations. Here the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific PBM based on the QLQ-C30, is validated using Dutch trial data with the EQ-5D-3L as a generic comparator measure. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from four Dutch randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comprising the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L. Respective Dutch value sets were applied. Correlations between the instruments were calculated for domains and index scores. Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlations (ICC) displayed agreement between the measures. Independent and paired t-tests, effect sizes and relative validity indices were used to determine the instruments' performance in detecting clinically known-group differences and health changes over time. RESULTS: We analysed data from 602 cancer patients from four different trials. In overall, the EORTC QLU-C10D showed good relative validity with the EQ-5D-3L as a comparator (correlations of index scores r = 0.53-0.75, ICCs 0.686-0.808, conceptually similar domains showed higher correlations than dissimilar domains). Most importantly, it detected 63% of expected clinical group differences and 50% of changes over time in patients undergoing treatment. Both instruments showed poor performance in survivors. Detection rate and measurement efficiency were clearly higher for the QLU-C10D than for the EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D showed good comparative validity in patients undergoing treatment. Our results underline the benefit that can be achieved by using a cancer-specific PBM for generating health utilities for cancer patients from a measurement perspective.

Equipercentile equating of scores from common patient-reported outcome measures of physical function in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To provide equipercentile equating of physical function (PF) scores from frequently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer patients to facilitate data pooling and comparisons. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Adult cancer patients from five European countries completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) computer adaptive test (CAT) Core, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Version 3.0 (QLQ-C30), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function 20a short form. The R package "equate" was used to establish conversion tables of PF scores on those measures with a bivariate rank correlation of at least 0.75. RESULTS: In total, 953 patients with cancer (mean age 58.9 years, 54.7% men) participated. Bivariate rank correlations between PF scores from the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, and PROMIS were all above 0.85, but below 0.69 for the FACT-G. Conversion tables were established for all measures but the FACT-G. These tables indicate which score from one PROM best matches the score from another PROM and provide standard errors of converted scores. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that linking of PF scores from both EORTC measures (CAT and QLQ-C30) with PROMIS and SF-36 is possible, whereas the physical domain of the FACT-G seems to be different. The established conversion tables may be used for comparing results or pooling data from clinical studies using different PROMs.

Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, SF-36, FACT-G, and PROMIS role and social functioning measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

OBJECTIVES: In line with the World Health Organizations' health definition, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures frequently cover aspects of social health. Our study aimed to evaluate the role functioning (RF) and social functioning (SF) contents assessed by PRO measures commonly used in cancer patients. METHODS: We analysed the item content of the SF and RF domains of the EORTC CAT Core, the EORTC QLQ-C30, the SF-36, and the FACT-G as well as the PROMIS item bank covering the Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities. Following an established methodology we linked item content to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. RESULTS: The content of 85 items was assigned to three ICF components ('Activities and Participation', 'Body Functions', and 'Environmental Factors'). The EORTC CAT Core RF items were mostly related to the first-level ICF categories 'Domestic life' and 'Community, social and civic life', while its SF item bank focused on 'Interpersonal interactions and relationships'. These three categories were also covered by the PROMIS social participation item bank. The FACT-G Social/Family scale focused on environmental factors ('Support and Relationships' and 'Attitudes') while the SF-36 Role-physical/emotional scales had a stronger focus on 'General tasks and demands' and 'Major life areas'. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight conceptual overlap and differences among PRO measures for the assessment of social health in cancer. This information may help to select the most appropriate measure for a specific setting or study purpose and to better understand the possibilities of linking scores across different PRO measures.

Patient-reported outcome measures for emotional functioning in cancer patients: Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, FACT-G, HADS, SF-36, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS instruments.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatment can have substantial impact on patients' emotional functioning. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing emotional functioning are available, but differences in content limit the comparability of results. To better understand conceptual (dis)similarities, we conducted a content comparison of commonly used PROMs. METHODS: We included emotional functioning items, scales, and item banks from the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-G, Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), SF-36, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS (item banks for anxiety, depression, and anger). Item content was linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and a hierarchical framework established for PROMIS. Single items could be coded with more than one ICF category but were solely assigned to one facet within the PROMIS framework. RESULTS: The measures comprise 132 unique items covering the ICF components 'Body functions' (136/153 codings, 88.9%) and 'Activities and participation' (15/153, 9.8%). Most ICF codings (112/153, 73.2%) referred to the third-level category 'b1528 Emotional functions, other specified'. According to the PROMIS framework 48.5% of the items assessed depression (64/132 items), followed by anxiety (41/132, 31.1%) and anger (26/132, 19.7%). The EORTC measures covered depression, anxiety, and anger in a single measure, while the PROMIS inventory provides separate item banks for these concepts. The FACT-G, SF-36, PRO-CTCAE and HADS covered depression and anxiety, but not anger. CONCLUSION: Our results provide an in-depth conceptual understanding of selected PROMs and important qualitative information going beyond psychometric evidence. Such information supports the identification of PROMs for which scores can be meaningfully linked with quantitative methods.

EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data for Italy by sex, age and health condition: an analysis of 1,036 individuals.

BACKGROUND: General population normative values for the widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), are available for a range of countries. These are mostly countries in northern Europe. However, there is still a lack of such normative values for southern Europe. Therefore, this study aims to provide sex-, age- and health condition-specific normative values for the general Italian population for the EORTC QLQ-C30. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is based on Italian EORTC QLQ-C30 general population data previously collected in an international EORTC project comprising over 15,000 respondents across 15 countries. Recruitment and assessment were carried out via online panels. Quota sampling was used for sex and age groups (18|-|39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and ≥ 70 years), separately for each country. We applied weights to match the age and sex distribution in our sample with UN statistics for Italy. Along with descriptive statistics, linear regression models were estimated to describe the associations of sex, age and health condition with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. RESULTS: A total of 1,036 respondents from Italy were included in our analyses. The weighted mean age was 49.3 years, and 536 (51.7%) participants were female. Having at least one health condition was reported by 60.7% of the participants. Men reported better scores than women on all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales but diarrhoea. While the impact of age differed across scales, older age was overall associated with better HRQoL as shown by the summary score. For all scales, differences were in favour of participants who did not report any health condition, compared to those who reported at least one. CONCLUSION: The Italian normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales support the interpretation of HRQoL profiles in Italian cancer populations. The strong impact of health conditions on EORTC QLQ-C30 scores highlights the importance of adjusting for the impact of comorbidities in cancer patients when interpreting HRQoL data.

Evaluating the Thresholds for Clinical Importance of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL in Patients Receiving Palliative Treatment.

Background: The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL is a shortened version of the widely used EORTC QLQ-C30. This questionnaire was developed to measure the symptoms and functional health of patients receiving palliative care. Objective: To enhance clinical interpretability of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, our aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of thresholds for clinical importance developed previously for the QLQ-C30 when applied to the QLQ-C15-PAL scales. Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Setting/Subjects: Patients with cancer receiving any type of palliative treatment. Measurement: Patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and anchor items on limitations, worries, and need for help for each of the health domains covered by the questionnaire. The anchor items were summarized in a binary criterion for clinical importance to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the thresholds for clinical importance. Results: In total, 225 patients participated in the study (mean age 64.5 years). Patients were recruited from Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The thresholds for clinical importance for the QLQ-C15-PAL scales showed a median sensitivity of 0.88 (range: 0.82 for sleep disturbances to 1.00 for dyspnea) and a median specificity of 0.74 (range: 0.54 for dyspnea to 0.89 for constipation). Conclusion: The thresholds for clinical importance showed high sensitivity and mostly high specificity in identifying clinically important symptoms and functional health impairments as assessed by the QLQ-C15-PAL. These thresholds will facilitate interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL scores in daily clinical practice and clinical research.