Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33512653›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2021

Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D.

Femke Jansen, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw, Eva Gamper, Richard Norman, Bernhard Holzner, Madeleine King, Georg Kemmler, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. United Kingdom value set for the functional assessment of cancer therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D) preference-based quality of life instrument.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  6. Comparing EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utilities with QLU-C10D utilities in hematologic cancer patients.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  7. Developing a patient-based utility value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D using the OPUF method in Chinese cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Low Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Norwegian and Swedish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  13. Developing a utility value set for the Gambling Quality of Life Scale-Brief (GQoLS-Brief) using a discrete choice experiment.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  16. 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 · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Femke JansenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. f.jansen1@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0111-0557
Irma M Verdonck-de LeeuwDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva GamperDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Richard NormanSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Bernhard HolznerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Madeleine KingSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Georg KemmlerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Psychiatry I, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group

Funding

European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 001/2018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo measure utilities among cancer patients, a cancer-specific utility instrument called the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLU-C10D has been developed based on EORTC quality of life core module (QLQ-C30). This study aimed to provide Dutch utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

methodsA cross-sectional valuation study was performed in 1017 participants representative in age and gender of the Dutch general population. The valuation method was a discrete choice experiment containing 960 choice sets, i.e. pairs of QLU-C10D health states, each health state described in terms of the 10 QLU-C10D domains and the duration of that health state. Each participant considered 16 choice sets, choosing their preferred health state from each pair. Utility scores were derived using generalized estimation equation models. Non-monotonic levels were combined.

resultsUtility decrements were generated for all 10 QLU-C10D domains, with largest decrements for pain (- 0.242), physical functioning (- 0.228), and role functioning (- 0.149). Non-monotonic levels of emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and appetite loss were combined. No decrement in utility was seen in case of a little or quite a bit impairment in emotional functioning or a little pain. The mean QLU-C10D utility score of the participants was 0.85 (median = 0.91, interquartile range = 0.82 to 0.96).

conclusionDutch utility decrements were generated for the QLU-C10D. These are important for evaluating the cost-utility of new cancer treatments and supportive care interventions. Further insight is warranted into the added value of the QLU-C10D alongside other utility instruments.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCancerDiscrete choice experimentQuality of lifeUtility

Identifiers

PMID33512653
PMCPMC8233279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.