Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41795780›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026

Cancer-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A validity comparison across six commonly diagnosed cancers.

Yiyin Cao, Sakhno Alina, Zitong Li, Haofei Li, Jiaxuan Shi, Runhong Li, Weidong Huang, Hongjuan Yu

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Yiyin Cao *School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Sakhno Alina *School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Zitong Li *School of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Haofei LiSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Jiaxuan ShiSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Runhong LiSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Weidong HuangSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. huangweidong@hrbmu.edu.cn.
Hongjuan YuDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. yuhongjuan2008@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 72274045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity of both generic and cancer-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) in patients undergoing cancer treatment, providing solid evidence for the optimal selection and implementation of these PBMs in oncology clinical practice settings.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among patients diagnosed with one of the six most common cancers in China, recruited from hospitals in Harbin, China, between August 2022 and December 2023. Participants completed two generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2) and two cancer-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension [QLU-C10D] and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Convergent validity was assessed using pairwise polychoric correlations between the four measures. Known-groups validity was evaluated by examining the measures’ ability to discriminate between patients based on cancer stage, with effect sizes (ES) calculated. Agreement between the utility scores of the four measures was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

resultsA total of 827 cancer patients completed the survey, including 270 with lung cancer, 96 with stomach cancer, 88 with liver cancer, 71 with oesophageal cancer, 142 with colorectal cancer, and 160 with breast cancer. The proportions in full health were 25.8%, 13.7%, 7.3%, and 2.4% for EQ-5D-5L, SF-6Dv2, QLU-C10D, and FACT-8D, respectively. Convergent validity analysis revealed that the symptom dimensions of cancer-specific PBMs had lower correlations with generic PBMs compared to their functional dimensions. Known-groups validity showed QLU-C10D was most effective in distinguishing cancer stages (highest ES across subgroups), whereas EQ-5D-5L performed poorest (ES = 0.33); SF-6Dv2 was most sensitive to ECOG differences (ES = 1.37), with all instruments robust for ECOG stratification. Agreement results indicated that the agreement between generic PBMs and cancer-specific PBMs was the lowest, compared to the agreement within each category.

conclusionsCancer-specific PBMs captured stage- and symptom-related burden more comprehensively, whereas generic PBMs were more informative for functional status and cross-cancer comparability. These findings underline the importance of balancing cancer-specific and generic PBMs through purpose- and site-specific combinations to optimize utility assessment and support decision-making in oncology.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient PreferenceQuality of LifeAdultAgedChinaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerChinaCost-utility analysisPreference-based measuresValidity

Identifiers

PMID41795780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.