COMPARING THE MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES OF EQ-5D-5L AND QLU-C10D IN CHINESE PATIENTS WITH NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER
Author(s)
Min Zhao, MS1, Yue Wang, MSc2, Xin Guan, PhD3, Xuejing Jin, PhD4, Hongchao Li, MSc, PhD3, Lu Ying Wang, PhD3.
1China Pharmaceutical University, NanJing, China, 2China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 3China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 4Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
1China Pharmaceutical University, NanJing, China, 2China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 3China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 4Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D in Chinese patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study enrolled NSCLC patients from 20 hospitals across 18 provinces in China. Patients completed paper-based questionnaires on sociodemographic and clinical information, EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30. EQ-5D-5L utilities were calculated using the Chinese value set. QLU-C10D utilities were derived using two Chinese value sets based on general-public and patient preferences. We compared score distributions, proportions of patients reporting full health, agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and known-groups validity across cancer stage, metastatic status, adverse events (AEs), and lines of therapy using effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE).
RESULTS: Overall, 915 patients were analyzed (mean age, 61.5 years; 36.4% female). EQ-5D-5L produced the highest mean utility (0.802; SD, 0.227), followed by QLU-C10D using the general-public value set (0.755; SD, 0.133) and patient value set (0.634; SD, 0.208). The proportion of patients reporting full health was higher for EQ-5D-5L than for QLU-C10D (25.36% vs 4.92%). Agreement between EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D utilities was good using the general-public value set (ICC=0.78) but moderate using the patient value set (ICC=0.64). Known-groups validity was comparable across stage groups (RE: 0.27, 0.28, and 0.27 for EQ-5D-5L, QLU-C10D general-public, and QLU-C10D patient value sets, respectively). EQ-5D-5L showed slightly greater discrimination by metastatic status than QLU-C10D (ES:0.224 vs. 0.195 and 0.10), whereas QLU-C10D appeared more discriminative across lines of therapy (ES: 0.234 VS. 0.281 and 0.286) and AEs (ES: 0.312 VS. 0.439 and 0.455). The REs suggested similar patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D generated different utility estimates and appeared to demonstrate complementary measurement properties in Chinese NSCLC patients. These findings suggest that the choice of preference-based measure and value set may influence QALY estimation and cost-effectiveness results in NSCLC.
METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study enrolled NSCLC patients from 20 hospitals across 18 provinces in China. Patients completed paper-based questionnaires on sociodemographic and clinical information, EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30. EQ-5D-5L utilities were calculated using the Chinese value set. QLU-C10D utilities were derived using two Chinese value sets based on general-public and patient preferences. We compared score distributions, proportions of patients reporting full health, agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and known-groups validity across cancer stage, metastatic status, adverse events (AEs), and lines of therapy using effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE).
RESULTS: Overall, 915 patients were analyzed (mean age, 61.5 years; 36.4% female). EQ-5D-5L produced the highest mean utility (0.802; SD, 0.227), followed by QLU-C10D using the general-public value set (0.755; SD, 0.133) and patient value set (0.634; SD, 0.208). The proportion of patients reporting full health was higher for EQ-5D-5L than for QLU-C10D (25.36% vs 4.92%). Agreement between EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D utilities was good using the general-public value set (ICC=0.78) but moderate using the patient value set (ICC=0.64). Known-groups validity was comparable across stage groups (RE: 0.27, 0.28, and 0.27 for EQ-5D-5L, QLU-C10D general-public, and QLU-C10D patient value sets, respectively). EQ-5D-5L showed slightly greater discrimination by metastatic status than QLU-C10D (ES:0.224 vs. 0.195 and 0.10), whereas QLU-C10D appeared more discriminative across lines of therapy (ES: 0.234 VS. 0.281 and 0.286) and AEs (ES: 0.312 VS. 0.439 and 0.455). The REs suggested similar patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D generated different utility estimates and appeared to demonstrate complementary measurement properties in Chinese NSCLC patients. These findings suggest that the choice of preference-based measure and value set may influence QALY estimation and cost-effectiveness results in NSCLC.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
MSR258
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
PRO & Related Methods
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology