ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of the cancer-specific utility measure EORTC QLU-C10D using evidence from four lung cancer trials covering six country value sets.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Phase IIb/III Randomized, Double-blind Trial of BIBW 2992 Plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) Versus Placebo Plus BSC in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Failing Erlotinib or Gefitinib (LUX-Lung 1)
A Randomised, Open-label, Phase III Study of BIBW 2992 Versus Chemotherapy as First-line Treatment for Patients With Stage IIIB or IV Adenocarcinoma of the Lung Harbouring an EGFR Activating Mutation
Phase III Randomized Trial of BIBW 2992 Plus Weekly Paclitaxel Versus Investigator's Choice of Chemotherapy Following BIBW 2992 Monotherapy in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Failing Previous Erlotinib or Gefitinib Treatment (LUX Lung 5)
LUX-Lung 8: A Randomized, Open-label Phase III Trial of Afatinib Versus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung as Second-line Therapy Following First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From toxicity to immunity: Evaluating CAR-T and conventional therapies in multiple myeloma through quality-adjusted life year (QALY) outcomes.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Quality of Life (QoL) Utility measure, QLU-C10D, is derived of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire, QLQ-C30. Based on the cancer-specific nature, the QLU-C10D is expected to be sensitive and responsive in lung cancer patients.This retrospective analysis used data from four international lung cancer multi-center trials (NCT00656136, NCT00949650, NCT01085136, NCT01523587). Clinical validity was assessed in comparison to a generic standard utility instrument, the EuroQoL Group´s EQ-5D-3L. Utilities of six country value sets (Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, UK) were calculated at baseline and end of treatment for both measures. Country value set pairs of both measures (k) were compared in terms of Relative Efficiency (RE) and difference in Effect Sizes (dES) in 1) sensitivity to detect differences between performance status groups and 2) responsiveness to changes at each trial sample. Analysis of the four trials (N1 = 496, N2 = 290, N3 = 202, N4 = 770) with the six country value sets of each utility measure showed ad 1) Sensitivity indices favored the QLU-C10D (k = 18, p ≤ 0.019; RE > 1.10; dES > 0.03), and ad 2) Responsiveness indices of changes within clinically known groups (k = 78), largely favored QLU-C10D (k = 74, p ≤ .024; RE > 1.01; dES > 0.02), in comparison with the generic utility instrument. In summary, 96% of the comparative indices favored the QLU-C10D. In summary, this study confirms the clinical validity of the QLU-C10D in lung cancer patients. The QLU-C10D produced homogenous results across six country value sets and detected differences/changes in alignment with clinical expectations. In most comparisons the QLU-C10D was more sensitive or responsive compared to the EQ-5D-3L.
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.