Health utility assessments in individuals undergoing diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopy: improved discrimination with a cancer-specific scale.

PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and discriminant validity of generic and cancer-specific measures for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for individuals undergoing diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal cancer. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using EQ-5D-5L (generic), and EORTC QLQ-C30 (cancer-specific) scales, 14 days after (baseline) and one-year following colonoscopy (follow-up). Utility scores were calculated by mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 onto QLU-C10D. Differences between participants with different indications for colonoscopy (positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT), surveillance, or symptoms) and colonoscopy findings (no polyps, polyps, or cancer) were tested using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Sensitivity was assessed by calculating the ceiling effects (proportion reporting the best possible level). RESULTS: 246 adults completed the survey, including those undergoing colonoscopy for symptoms (n = 87), positive FOBT (n = 92) or surveillance (n = 67). Those with symptoms had the lowest HRQoL at both baseline and follow-up, with differences observed within the HRQoL domains/areas of role function, appetite loss and bowel function on the QLU-C10D. No differences were found in HRQoL when stratified by findings at colonoscopy with both measures or when comparing baseline and follow-up responses. Participants reporting full health with EQ-5D-5L (21% at baseline and 16% at follow-up) still had problems on the QLU-C10D, with fatigue and sleep at baseline and with role function and fatigue at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing colonoscopy for symptoms had lower HRQoL compared to surveillance or positive FOBT. The cancer-specific QLU-C10D was more sensitive and had greater discriminant ability between patients undergoing colonoscopy for different indications.

Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide Chinese utility weights for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (EORTC QLU-C10D) which is a preference-based cancer-specific utility instrument derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of the general population in China, with quota sampling for age and gender. Each respondent was asked to complete a discrete choice experimental survey consisting of 16 randomly selected choice sets. The conditional logit model and mixed logit model were used to analyze respondents' preferences, and the goodness of fit of the model was tested. RESULTS: A total of 2003 respondents were included in the analysis. Utility decrements within dimensions were typically monotonic. Monotonic inconsistency issues in the Fatigue, Sleep, and Nausea dimensions were normalized by monotonicity correction. Physical functioning, Pain, and Role functioning were associated with the greatest utility weights, with the smallest decrements being in Bowel problems and Emotional functioning. The utility value for the worst health state was 0.083, i.e. slightly higher than being dead. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first China-specific set of value for the QLU-C10D based on societal preferences of the Chinese adult general population. The value set can be used as a cancer-specific scoring system for economic evaluations of new oncology therapies and technologies in China.

1. This study provides the first China-specific set of value for the QLU-C10D based on societal preferences of the Chinese adult general population. 2. The value set can be used as a cancer-specific scoring system for economic evaluations of new oncology therapies and technologies in China.

Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility measure derived from the cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten HRQL dimensions: physical, role, social and emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, and bowel problems. METHODS: Quota sampling of a Japanese online panel was used to achieve representativeness of the Japanese general population by sex and age (≥ 18 years). The valuation method was an online discrete choice experiment. Each participant considered 16 choice pairs, randomly assigned from 960 choice pairs. Each pair included two QLU-C10D health states and life expectancy. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression, parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of each dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient for life expectancy. RESULTS: A total of 2809 eligible panel members consented, 2662/2809 (95%) completed at least one choice pair, and 2435/2662 (91%) completed all choice pairs. Within dimensions, preference weights were generally monotonic. Physical functioning, role functioning, and pain were associated with the largest utility weights. Intermediate utility weights were associated with social functioning and nausea; the remaining symptoms and emotional functioning were associated with smaller utility decrements. The value of the worst health state was - 0.221, lower than that seen in most other existing QLU-C10D country-specific value sets. CONCLUSIONS: The Japan-specific QLU-C10D value set is suitable for evaluating the cost and utility of oncology treatments for Japanese health technology assessment and decision-making.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions: Development and Investigation of General Population Utility Norms for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions (EORTC QLU-C10D) is a cancer-specific preference-based measure, providing health utilities for use in economic evaluations derived from the widely used health-related quality of life measure, EORTC QLQ-C30. Several EORTC QLU-C10D country-specific value sets are available. This article aimed to provide EORTC QLU-C10D general population utility norms for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom, to aid interpretability of obtained utilities in these countries. METHODS: Data were collected in aforementioned countries via a quota-sampled, cross-sectional online survey (n = 100/age-sex group; N = approximately 1000/country). Participants were asked to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 and provide sociodemographic data. Country-specific utility norms were calculated using the respective country tariff on the country's EORTC QLQ-C30 data after weighting to achieve population representativeness for age and sex. Norm values are provided as means (SDs) by country, age, and sex groups. Tukey's multiple comparison test investigated mean differences among countries. The impact of country, age, and sex on utility values was investigated with a multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: Country-specific mean utilities range from 0.724 (United Kingdom) to 0.843 (Italy). Country-, sex-, and age-specific mean utilities range from 0.664 for 30- to 39-year-old male Canadians to 0.899 for > 70-year-old male Italians. Utilities were lower in females in 4 of 6 countries, and the impact of age differed among countries. Independent of the impact of age and sex, between-country differences were found (P ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: Results showed a varying impact of age and sex on EORTC QLU-C10D utilities and significant between-country differences. Using national utility norms and utility decrements is recommended.

Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy.

AIM: This study assessed the responsiveness and convergent validity of two preference-based measures; the newly developed cancer-specific EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) relative to the generic three-level version of the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) in evaluating short-term health related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes after esophagectomy. METHODS: Participants were enrolled in a multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine the impact of preoperative and postoperative immunonutrition versus standard nutrition in patients with esophageal cancer. HRQoL was assessed seven days before and 42 days after esophagectomy. Standardized Response Mean and Effect Size were calculated to assess responsiveness. Ceiling effects for each dimension were calculated as the proportion of the best level responses for that dimension at follow-up/post-operatively. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation and the level of agreement was explored using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Data from 164 respondents (mean age: 63 years, 81% male) were analysed. HRQoL significantly reduced on both measures with large effect sizes (> 0.80), and a greater mean difference (0.29 compared to 0.16) on QLU-C10D. Both measures had ceiling effects (> 15%) on all dimensions at baseline. Following esophagectomy, ceiling effects were observed with self-care (86%), mobility (67%), anxiety/depression (55%) and pain/discomfort (19%) dimensions on EQ-5D-3L. For QLU-C10D ceiling effects were observed with emotional function (53%), physical function (16%), nausea (35%), sleep (31%), bowel problems (21%) and pain (20%). A strong correlation (r = 0.71) was observed between EQ-5D-3L anxiety and QLU-C10D emotional function dimensions. Good agreement (3.7% observations outside the limits of agreement) was observed between the utility scores. CONCLUSION: The QLU-C10D is comparable to the more widely applied generic EQ-5D-3L, however, QLU-C10D was more sensitive to short-term utility changes following esophagectomy. Cognisant of requirements by policy makers to apply generic utility measures in cost effectiveness studies, the disease-specific QLU-C10D should be used alongside the generic measures like EQ-5D-3L. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12611000178943) on the 15th of February 2011.

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

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.

EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland.

OBJECTIVE: To develop Austrian, Italian, and Polish general population value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30, and to descriptively compare their index scores for distinct health states. METHODS: The QLU-C10D descriptive system comprises 10 health attributes and each can take on 4 levels. A standardised and pre-tested methodology has been applied for valuations including a web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE). It was administered in 1000 general population respondents per country recruited via online panels, aiming at representativeness for core socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: In all three countries, the attributes with the largest impact on utility were physical functioning, pain, and role functioning. Cancer-specific dimensions with the largest impact were nausea and fatigue or bowel problems. Utility values of the worst health state (i.e. severe problems on all 10 dimension) were -0.111 (Austria), 0.025 (Italy), and 0.048 (Poland). Country-specific utilities differed for a selection of health states across the continuum. Austrian utilities were systematically lower for moderately and severely impaired health states. CONCLUSION: QLU-C10D cancer-specific utilities can now be calculated in three more countries. Differences between countries indicate that careful consideration is required when using non-country-specific value sets in economic evaluations.

German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

PURPOSE: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30, a widely used cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire. It covers ten dimensions: physical, role, social, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, and bowel problems. To allow national health attitudes to be reflected, country-specific valuations are being performed by collaboration of the Multi-Attribute Utility Cancer (MAUCa) Consortium and the EORTC. The purpose of this paper is to provide German value sets (utility weights) for the QLU-C10D. METHODS: Valuations were run in a web-based setting in two general population samples of approximately 2000 adults in total. As the German version of the QLQ-C30 is presently undergoing a revision of the wording of one response category, valuations for both the current and the new version were performed (Germany 1 and 2). Utilities were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Data were analyzed by conditional logistic regression and mixed logits. RESULTS: Completion rates were 88.3% (1002/1135) and 90.4% (1016/1124) for Germany 1 and Germany 2 valuations, respectively. Dimensions with the largest impact on utility weights were, in this order: physical functioning, pain, role functioning, social functioning and nausea (same ordering for both German versions). Several violations of the logical ordering of levels were observed for Germany 1; this was largely improved for Germany 2. CONCLUSION: This study established German utility weights for the cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D.

Test-Retest Reliability of Discrete Choice Experiment for Valuations of QLU-C10D Health States.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a newly developed cancer-specific multiattribute utility instrument based on the widely used health-related quality of life instrument, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, was introduced: the QLU-C10D. For the elicitation of utility weights, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed. Our aim was to investigate the DCE in terms of individual choice consistency and utility estimate consistency by applying a test-retest design. METHODS: We conducted the study in general population samples in Germany and France. The DCE was administered via a web-based self-complete survey using online panels. Respondents were presented 16 choice sets comprising 11 attributes with 4 levels each. Retest was conducted 4 to 6 weeks after first assessment. We used kappa and percentage agreement as measures of choice consistency and both intraclass correlations and mean utility differences as measures of utility estimate consistency. RESULTS: A total of 300 German respondents (31% female, mean age 48 years [SD 14]) and 305 French respondents (46% female, mean age 47 years [SD 16]) completed test and retest assessments. Individual choice consistency was moderate to high (Germany: κ = 0.605, percentage agreement = 80.2%; France: κ = 0.411, percentage agreement = 70.6%). Utility estimate consistency was high when considering intraclass correlations (all >0.79). Mean utility differences were 0.08 in the German sample and 0.05 in the French sample. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the designed DCE elicits stable health state preferences rather than guesses or mood-specific or condition-specific judgments. Nevertheless, the identified mean utility differences between test and retest need to be taken into account when determining minimal important differences for the QLU-C10D in future research.

Order of Presentation of Dimensions Does Not Systematically Bias Utility Weights from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used to value aspects of health. An issue with their adoption is that results may be sensitive to the order in which dimensions of health are presented in the valuation task. Findings in the literature regarding order effects are discordant at present. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the magnitude of order effect of quality-of-life (QOL) dimensions within the context of a DCE designed to produce country-specific value sets for the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D), a new utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific QOL questionnaire, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. METHODS: The DCE comprised 960 choice sets, divided into 60 versions of 16 choice sets, with each respondent assigned to a version. Within each version, the order of QLU-C10D QOL dimensions was randomized, followed by life duration in the last position. The DCE was completed online by 2053 individuals in France and Germany. We analyzed the data with a series of conditional logit models, adjusted for repeated choices within respondent. We used F tests to assess order effects, correcting for multiple hypothesis testing. RESULTS: Each F test failed to reject the null hypothesis of no position effect: 1) all QOL order positions considered jointly; 2) last QOL position only; 3) first QOL position only. Furthermore, the order coefficients were small relative to those of the QLU-C10D QOL dimension levels. CONCLUSIONS: The order of presentation of QOL dimensions within a DCE designed to provide utility weights for the QLU-C10D had little effect on level coefficients of those QOL dimensions.

A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparison of the measurement properties of two cancer-specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs), EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D, in Chinese patients with hematologic malignancies (HM). METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal study on patients with HM in China, using QLU-C10D and FACT-8D at baseline and follow-up (3-4 months from baseline). We assessed: (i) convergent validity using Spearman's rank correlation test (r) with EQ-5D-5L; (ii) clinical-groups validity by differentiating cancer stages, overall health assessment (OHA), Eastern Cancer Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and mental health status. We also examined clinical validity with effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE); (iii) responsiveness to changes in patient self-perception using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curves (AUC); and (iv) agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and visualized with Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: Among the 308 patients with HM at baseline, 131 completed the follow-up survey. Agreement between the two measures was high (ICC = 0.76). Both measures were highly correlated with EQ-5D-5 L and significantly differentiated (p < 0.001) among groups categorized by cancer stage, OHA performance status, and mental health. ESs for QLU-C10D were numerically higher for cancer stage, OHA, and performance status (ES = 0.53-1.49), whereas ES was higher for FACT-8D and mental health status (ES = 1.35). Responsiveness was higher for QLU-C10D (AUC = 0.84) compared to FACT-8D (AUC = 0.78). CONCLUSION: Both QLU-C10D and FACT-8D are valid cancer-specific MAUIs for evaluating patients with HM. However, scholars should consider their slight differences in focus when choosing between the two measures.

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.

Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: To compare measurement properties of the utility scores derived from various country-specific value sets of EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EORTC QLU-C10D (10D) in gastric cancer patient. METHODS: The study used cross-sectional data of 243 Chinese gastric cancer patients who completed both 5L and EORTC QLQ-C30. Utility score of QLU-C10D is generated from all the available QLU-C10D value sets currently; the score of 5L is derived from the corresponding 5L value sets for the countries with both the 5L and QLU-C10D value sets and the Chinese 5L value set. Convergent validity was evaluated by testing their correlations with the VAS score. Known-group validity was assessed by comparing the utility scores the patients with different severities. Their relative efficiency (RE) was also compared. RESULTS: Correlation coefficient of 5L and QLU-C10D utility scores with VAS ranged from 0.54 to 0.59, and 0.55 to 0.63, respectively. Both the utility scores were in general able to discriminate the patients with different severities; and 5L utility score had higher RE in the majority of known-groups. CONCLUSION: EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D utility scores were different and, thus, non-swappable. They possess similar convergent validity and known-group validity; while EQ-5D-5L scores may have better discriminative power.

The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study.

OBJECTIVE: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new preference-based measure derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Country-specific value sets are required to support the cost-utility analysis of cancer-related interventions. This study aimed to generate an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for Hong Kong (HK). METHODS: A HK online panel was quota-sampled to achieve an adult general population sample representative by sex and age. Participants were invited to complete an online discrete choice experiment survey. Each participant was asked to complete 16 choice-pairs, randomly assigned from a total of 960 choice-pairs, each comprising two QLU-C10D health states and a duration attribute. Conditional and mixed logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The analysis included data from 1041 respondents who had successfully completed the online survey. The distribution of sex did not differ from that of the general population, but a significant difference was found among age groups. A weighting analysis for non-representative variable (age) was used. Utility decrements were generally monotonic, with the largest decrements for physical functioning (- 0.308), role functioning (- 0.165), and pain (- 0.161). The mean QLU-C10D utility score of the participants was 0.804 (median = 0.838, worst to best = - 0.169 to 1). The value of the worst health state was - 0.223, which was sufficiently lower than 0 (being dead). CONCLUSIONS: This study established HK utility weights for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses across cancer-related health programmes and technologies.

The EORTC QLU-C10D discrete choice experiment for cancer patients: a first step towards patient utility weights.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) is a novel cancer-specific preference-based measure (PBM) for which value sets are being developed for an increasing number of countries. This is done by obtaining health preferences from the respective general population. There is an ongoing discussion if instead patients suffering from the disease in question should be asked for their preferences. We used the QLU-C10D valuation survey, originally designed for use in the general population, in a sample of cancer patients in Austria to assess the methodology's acceptability and applicability in this target group before obtaining QLU-C10D patient preferences. METHODS: The core of the QLU-C10D valuation survey is a discrete choice experiment in which respondents are asked to give preferences for certain health states (described by a relatively large number of 10 quality of life domains) and an associated survival time. They therewith are asked to trade off quality of life against life time. As this might be a very burdensome task for cancer patients undergoing treatment, a cognitive interview was conducted in a pilot sample to assess burden and potential additional needs for explanation in order to be able to use the DCE for the development of QLU-C10D patient preferences. In addition, responses to general feedback questions on the survey were compared against responses from a matched control group from the already completed Austrian general population valuation survey. RESULTS: We included 48 patients (mean age 59.9 years; 46% female). In the cognitive interview, the majority indicated that their experience with the survey was positive (85%) and overall clarity as good (90%). In response to the general feedback questions, patients rated the presentation of the health states less clear than matched controls (p = 0.008). There was no difference between patients and the general population concerning the difficulty in choosing between the health states (p = 0.344). CONCLUSION: Despite the relatively large number of DCE domains the survey was manageable for patients and allows going on with the QLU-C10D patient valuation study.

Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference Score.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Preference Score (PROPr) are new health state utility (HSU) scores for quality-adjusted life years in cost-effectiveness analyses. Both are expected to measure HSU more comprehensively than existing measures in cancer patients by including cancer-related health domains such as fatigue. The aim of this study is to compare both scores in a sample of breast cancer patients. METHODS: We collected QLU-C10D and PROPr from 291 patients 90 days after treatment in the outpatient clinic of the breast cancer center at Charité - University Medicine Berlin between June 2018 and April 2021. We assessed both scores' convergent and known-groups validity, agreement, and ceiling and floor effects. RESULTS: The mean QLU-C10D score [0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.74] and the mean PROPr score (0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.46) differed systematically (0.28, 95% CI 0.27-0.30) and showed fair agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.57). The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86). Both scores showed similar discrimination across known groups of age, treatment, cancer stage, marital status, and education. The QLU-C10D showed relevant ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: QLU-C10D and PROPr measure HSU differently as a result of different utility models. The choice between QLU-C10D and PROPr should be informed by context, population, disease, and treatment.

The EORTC QLU-C10D was more efficient in detecting clinical known group differences in myelodysplastic syndromes than the EQ-5D-3L.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to investigate the relative validity of the preference-based measure EORTC QLU-C10D in comparison with the EQ-5D-3L in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. METHODS: We used data from an international multicentre, observational cohort study of MDS patients. Baseline EORTC QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L scores were used and index scores calculated for Italy, Australia, and the UK. Criterion validity was established by Spearman and intraclass correlations (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Construct validity was established by the instruments' ability to discriminate known groups, i.e. groups whose health status is expected to differ. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 619 MDS patients (61.1% male; median age 73.8 years). Correlations between theoretically corresponding domains were largely higher than between unrelated domains. ICCs and Bland-Altman plots indicated moderate to good criterion validity. Ceiling effects were lower for the QLU-C10D (4.7%) than for the EQ-5D-3L (22.6%). The EQ-5D-3L failed to discriminate known-groups in two and the QLU-C10D in one of the comparisons; the QLU-C10D's efficiency in doing so was higher in clinical known-groups. Results were comparable between the countries. CONCLUSIONS: The QLU-C10D may be suitable to generate health utilities for economic research in MDS. Responsiveness and minimal important differences need yet to be established.