ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2017
Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping to estimate health state utility: a systematic review of development and limitations.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping the modified rankin scale (mRS) onto the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) utilities.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Trial
- Validity of HINT-8 in evaluating health-related quality of life among cervical cancer patients.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Health related quality of life of patients with breast cancer in Malaysia: evidence from EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Assessing the health utility values of patients with six common cancers in China using the QLU-C10D: A cross-sectional survey.iScience · 2026Article
- Trajectory of quality of life among patients with cancer at the end of life: a longitudinal survey study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Assessing the reliability of a novel cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D) and comparing its validity to EQ-5D-5L in colorectal cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Automated, Real-Time Integration of Biometric Data From Wearable Devices With Electronic Medical Records: A Feasibility Study.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Cancer population norms using a new value set for the SF-6Dv2 based on the preferences of patients with breast or colorectal cancer in Quebec.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- A scoping review to create a framework for the steps in developing condition-specific preference-based instruments de novo or from an existing non-preference-based instrument: use of item response theory or Rasch analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Article
- Creating a Multiply Imputed Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L in Canada: State-Level Misspecification Terms Are Needed to Characterize Parameter Uncertainty Correctly.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Health utility assessments in individuals undergoing diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopy: improved discrimination with a cancer-specific scale.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Cognitive impairment and health-related quality of life amongst older Australians: evidence from a longitudinal investigation.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L Index in Indonesian Cancer Patients.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Alternatives to the quality-adjusted life year: How well do they address common criticisms?Health services research · 2023Article
- Responsiveness and construct validity of EPIC-26, AQoL-6D and SF-6D following treatment in prostate cancer.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Measuring the Wellbeing of Cancer Patients with Generic and Disease-Specific Instruments.Cancers · 2023Article
- Assessment of Quality of Life 8-Dimension (AQoL-8D): translation, validation, and application in two Dutch trials in patients with epilepsy and schizophrenia.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L.
methodsA longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs.
resultsComplete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar.
conclusionsWhen comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.