Juan Zhu1,2, Xin-Xin Yan1, Cheng-Cheng Liu1, Hong Wang1, Le Wang1, Su-Mei Cao3, Xian-Zhen Liao4, Yun-Feng Xi5, Yong Ji6, Lin Lei7, Hai-Fan Xiao4, Hai-Jing Guan8, Wen-Qiang Wei2, Min Dai9, Wanqing Chen10, Ju-Fang Shi11. 1. Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. 2. Cancer Registry Office, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 3. Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 4. Hunan Office for Cancer Control and Research, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, People's Republic of China. 5. Inner Mongolia Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hohhot, People's Republic of China. 6. Cancer Hospital, Shenzhen Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China. 7. Shenzhen Center for Chronic Disease Control, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China. 8. China Center for Health Economic Research, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 9. Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. daimin2002@hotmail.com. 10. Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. chenwq@cicams.ac.cn. 11. Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. shijf@cicams.ac.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of three-level EuroQol five-dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) and five-level EuroQol five-dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) among common cancer patients in urban China. METHODS: A hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in three provinces from 2016 to 2018 in urban China. Patients with breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or lung cancer were recruited to complete the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Response distribution, discriminatory power (indicator: Shannon index [H'] and Shannon evenness index [J']), ceiling effect (the proportion of full health state), convergent validity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared between the two instruments. RESULTS: A total of 1802 cancer patients (breast cancer: 601, colorectal cancer: 601, lung cancer: 600) were included, with the mean age of 55.6 years. The average inconsistency rate was 4.4%. Compared with EQ-5D-3L (average: H' = 1.100, J' = 0.696), an improved discriminatory power was observed in EQ-5D-5L (H' = 1.473, J' = 0.932), especially contributing to anxiety/depression dimensions. The ceiling effect was diminished in EQ-5D-5L (26.5%) in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (34.5%) (p < 0.001), mainly reflected in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions. The overall utility score was 0.790 (95% CI 0.778-0.801) for EQ-5D-3L and 0.803 (0.790-0.816) for EQ-5D-5L (p < 0.001). A similar pattern was also observed in the detailed cancer-specific analysis. CONCLUSIONS: With greater discriminatory power, convergent validity and lower ceiling, EQ-5D-5L may be preferable to EQ-5D-3L for the assessment of HRQoL among cancer patients. However, higher utility scores derived form EQ-5D-5L may also lead to lower QALY gains than those of 3L potentially in cost-utility studies and underestimation in the burden of disease.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of three-level EuroQol five-dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) and five-level EuroQol five-dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) among common cancerpatients in urban China. METHODS: A hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in three provinces from 2016 to 2018 in urban China. Patients with breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or lung cancer were recruited to complete the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Response distribution, discriminatory power (indicator: Shannon index [H'] and Shannon evenness index [J']), ceiling effect (the proportion of full health state), convergent validity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared between the two instruments. RESULTS: A total of 1802 cancerpatients (breast cancer: 601, colorectal cancer: 601, lung cancer: 600) were included, with the mean age of 55.6 years. The average inconsistency rate was 4.4%. Compared with EQ-5D-3L (average: H' = 1.100, J' = 0.696), an improved discriminatory power was observed in EQ-5D-5L (H' = 1.473, J' = 0.932), especially contributing to anxiety/depression dimensions. The ceiling effect was diminished in EQ-5D-5L (26.5%) in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (34.5%) (p < 0.001), mainly reflected in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions. The overall utility score was 0.790 (95% CI 0.778-0.801) for EQ-5D-3L and 0.803 (0.790-0.816) for EQ-5D-5L (p < 0.001). A similar pattern was also observed in the detailed cancer-specific analysis. CONCLUSIONS: With greater discriminatory power, convergent validity and lower ceiling, EQ-5D-5L may be preferable to EQ-5D-3L for the assessment of HRQoL among cancerpatients. However, higher utility scores derived form EQ-5D-5L may also lead to lower QALY gains than those of 3L potentially in cost-utility studies and underestimation in the burden of disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; EQ-5D-3L; EQ-5D-5L; Health-related quality of life (HRQoL); Psychometrics
Authors: M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard; Dominik Golicki; Claire Gudex; Maciej Niewada; Luciana Scalone; Paul Swinburn; Jan Busschbach Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dominik Golicki; Maciej Niewada; Anna Karlińska; Julia Buczek; Adam Kobayashi; M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: A M Garratt; H Furunes; C Hellum; T Solberg; J I Brox; K Storheim; L G Johnsen Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 3.186