Author(s)
Franken M1, Leeneman B1, Jochems A2, Schouwenburg M2, Aarts M3, van Akkooi A4, van den Berkmortel F5, van den Eertwegh A6, Groenewegen G7, de Groot J8, Haanen J4, Hospers G9, Kapiteijn H10, Koornstra R11, Kruit W12, Louwman M13, Piersma D14, van Rijn R15, ten Tije A16, Vreugdenhil G17, Wouters M4, van Zeijl M2, van der Hoeven J1, Uyl-de Groot C18
1Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands, 3Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 4Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen, The Netherlands, 6VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 7University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 8Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands, 9University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, 10Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands, 11Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 12Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 13Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 14Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 15Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 16Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands, 17Maxima Medical Center, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 18Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations require generic preference-based utility data, which is, however, only limited available for advanced cutaneous melanoma. We evaluated the extent to which previously developed mapping algorithms for cross-walking cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) predict externally valid utility values in Dutch advanced cutaneous melanoma patients. METHODS: We investigated non-preference based disease specific and preference-based generic Qol of patients included in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) who completed both the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) for Melanoma (FACT-M) and the EuroQol-EQ-5D questionnaire. We used published mapping algorithms for several types of cancer (Cheung 2009, Teckle 2013), and (all disease stages) melanoma cancer (Askew 2014) for cross-walking FACT(-M) scores to EQ-5D utility to compare predicted to observed utility in Dutch advanced cutaneous melanoma patients. RESULTS: A total of 315 DMTR patients (median age 63 years; male: 62%) completed the FACT-M and the EuroQol-EQ-5D questionnaire between August 2014 and April 2016. Mean observed EQ-5D utility was 0.835 (SD: 0.181). Mean observed FACT-M scores were 23.46, 18.39, 17.44, 17.46, 52.71, and 28.44 for physical well-being (PWB), social/family well-being (SWB), emotional well-being (EWB), functional well-being (FWB), melanoma subscale (MS), and melanoma surgical subscale (MSS), respectively. Predicted utility ranged from 0.764 to 0.867. Mapping algorithms for the overall FACT-General resulted in statistically significant lower utility values (range: 0.764-0.810). Mapping algorithms for the overall FACT-M (range: 0.810-0.830) and for various subscales (range: 0.802-0.867) generated statistically significant lower and higher utility as well as comparable utility values. CONCLUSIONS: Mapping non-preference based disease specific QoL to generic preference-based QoL may facilitate economic evaluations. However, the external validity of mapping algorithms may be hampered in different types of cancer, different disease stages, and different patient populations. Mapping algorithms should, therefore, be used with caution. It remains crucial to collect generic preference-based QoL data in different patient populations.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2016-10, ISPOR Europe 2016, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 7 (November 2016)
Code
PRM148
Topic
Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
PRO & Related Methods
Disease
Oncology, Sensory System Disorders
