Derivation of utility values from European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life-core 30 questionnaire values in lung cancer

Journal of Thoracic Oncology

Volumn 5, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1953-1957

  Jang, Raymond W ^a,b   Isogai, Pierre K ^c   Mittmann, Nicole ^b,c   Bradbury, Penelope A ^a   Shepherd, Frances A ^a,b   Feld, Ronald ^a,b   Leighl, Natasha B ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Derivation of utility values; Economic evaluation; EORTC QLQC30; EQ 5D; Non small cell lung cancer

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ERLOTINIB;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CANCER CENTER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PAIN; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RELAPSE; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; EMOTION; EUROPE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTPATIENT; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SOCIAL ASPECT; SYMPTOM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 78650439499     PISSN: 15560864     EISSN: 15561380     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f77a6a     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:365-376. (Pubitemid 23073154)
2. 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 1993;11:570-579. (Pubitemid 23071057)
3. Revicki DA. Relationship between pharmacoeconomics and health related quality of life. In B Spilker (Ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996. Pp. 1077-1083.
4. Torrance GW. Designing and conducting cost-utility analyses. In Spilker B (Ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996. Pp. 1105-1111.
5. Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Osoba D. Are chemotherapy patients HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res 2006;15:285-298. (Pubitemid 43230117)
6. Mortimer D, Segal L. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medi Decis Making 2008;28: 66-89.
7. Bagust A, Barraza-Llorens M, Philips Z. Deriving a compound quality of life measure from the EORTC-QLQ-C30/LC13 instrument for use in economic evaluations of lung cancer clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:1081-1088.
8. Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual, 3rd Ed. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, 2001.
9. Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In B Spilker (Ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996. Pp. 191-201.
10. EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
11. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D2 valuation model. Med Care 2005;43:203-220.
12. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. New York, NY: Springer, 2001.
13. Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, et al. Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health 2007;10: 408-414. (Pubitemid 47481112)
14. Crott R, Briggs A. Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 11:427-434.
15. 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;12:1151-1157.
16. 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;12:167-171.
17. 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. (Pubitemid 351298228)