Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38696019›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2024

Cancer-Specific Health Utilities: Evaluation of Core Measurement Properties of the EORTC QLU-C10D in Lung Cancer Patients-Data from Four Multicentre LUX-Lung Trials, Applying Six Country Tariffs.

Micha J Pilz, Simone Seyringer, Imad Al-Naesan, Madeleine T King, Andrew Bottomley, Richard Norman, Lisa Schlosser, Tobias Hell, Eva Maria Gamper, EORTC Quality of Life Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pre-treatment quality of life and survival outcomes in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Cancer-specific utility: clinical validation of the EORTC QLU-C10D in patients with glioblastoma.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Micha J PilzUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Simone SeyringerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Imad Al-NaesanUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Madeleine T KingSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Andrew BottomleyQuality of Life Department, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Lisa SchlosserDepartment of Mathematics, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Tobias HellDepartment of Mathematics, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Eva Maria GamperDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. eva.gamper@tirol-kliniken.at.
EORTC Quality of Life Group

Funding

European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer #12/2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCost-utility analysis generally requires valid preference-based measures (PBMs) to assess the utility of patient health. While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs may capture additional aspects of health relevant for certain patient populations. This study investigates the construct and concurrent criterion validity of the cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) in non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

methodsWe retrospectively analysed data from four multicentre LUX-Lung trials, all of which had administered the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the EQ-5D-3L. We applied six country-specific value sets (Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom) to both instruments. Criterion validity was assessed via correlations between the instruments' utility scores. Correlations of divergent and convergent domains and Bland-Altman plots investigated construct validity. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed.

resultsThe comparison of the EORTC QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L produced homogenous results for five of the six country tariffs. High correlations of utilities (r > 0.7) were found for all country tariffs except for the Netherlands. Moderate to high correlations of converging domain pairs (r from 0.472 to 0.718) were found with few exceptions, such as the Social Functioning-Usual Activities domain pair (max. r = 0.376). For all but the Dutch tariff, the EORTC QLU-C10D produced consistently lower utility values compared to the EQ-5D-3L (x̄ difference from - 0.082 to 0.033). Floor and ceiling effects were consistently lower for the EORTC QLU-C10D (max. 4.67% for utilities).

conclusionsThe six country tariffs showed good psychometric properties for the EORTC QLU-C10D in lung cancer patients. Criterion and construct validity was established. The QLU-C10D showed superior measurement precision towards the upper and lower end of the scale compared to the EQ-5D-3L, which is important when cost-utility analysis seeks to measure health change across the severity spectrum.

Identifiers

PMID38696019
PMCPMC11252099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.