ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2021
Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- The evolution of cancer therapies and their Implications for health technology assessment in Australia.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- Cancer-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A validity comparison across six commonly diagnosed cancers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Translating the EORTC CAT core and the QLQ-C30 to the EQ-5D-5L in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A comparison of direct and indirect mapping algorithms.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- 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
- CalculatingGlobal spine journal · 2024Article
- Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma.
methodsQuality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures.
resultsMean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson's correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient < 0.90) at baseline. The model predicted slightly higher QALYs gained when using EQ-5D-3L over QLU-C10D-derived utilities (1.87 vs 1.74, respectively). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$30.5K when using EQ-5D-3L utilities, compared to US$32.7K when using QLU-C10D utilities. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the two sets of utilities were almost indistinguishable.
conclusionThis study supports the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument in immunotherapy treated metastatic melanoma, and found no additional benefit for using the disease-specific QLU-C10D when using Australian weights.
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.