Author(s)
Franken M1, Leeneman B1, Schouwenburg M2, Jochems A2, 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: Health related quality of life (QoL) is an important predictor of survival. There is, however, little evidence on QoL in advanced melanoma patients. We investigated non-preference based disease specific and preference-based generic QoL in Dutch advanced cutaneous melanoma patients. METHODS: We included all advanced cutaneous melanoma patients participating in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) who completed both the non-preference based disease specific Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Melanoma (FACT-M) and the generic preference-based EuroQol-EQ-5D questionnaire. We used the Dutch Tariff to calculate EQ-5D utility and the FACT-M scoring guideline to calculate FACT-M total and subscale scores. To enable easy interpretation, all FACT-M scores were rescaled to values between 0 and 1. Spearman correlation was used for assessing the correlation between EQ-5D and FACT-M scores. RESULTS: A total of 315 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) and mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score was 0.700 (SD: 0.121). Mean observed (rescaled) FACT subscale scores were 0.838, 0.657, 0.727, 0.624, 0.824, and 0.889 for physical well-being (PWB), social/family well-being (SWB), emotional well-being (EWB), functional well-being (FWB), melanoma subscale (MS), and melanoma surgery scale (MSS), respectively. Total (rescaled) scores were 0.710, 0.753, 0.777 for the FACT-General, FACT-MS, and FACT-MS+MSS, respectively. All total scores (FACT-MS, FACT-MS+MSS, FACT-General) and the subscales PWB and MS had the best correlation with EQ5D utility (rho: 0.71, 0.71, 0.66, 0.75, and 0.69, respectively; all p-values<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates that QoL measured with preference-based instruments differs from QoL measured with non-preference based disease specific instruments. Both types of instruments measure different aspects of QoL and use a different methodology. The PWB and MS subscales and all total FACT(-M) scores had the best correlation with the observed EQ-5D utility.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2016-10, ISPOR Europe 2016, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 7 (November 2016)
Code
PCN214
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Oncology, Sensory System Disorders
