Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Dec;152:101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.010. Epub 2022 Sep 24.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Preference Score (PROPr) are new health state utility (HSU) scores for quality-adjusted life years in cost-effectiveness analyses. Both are expected to measure HSU more comprehensively than existing measures in cancer patients by including cancer-related health domains such as fatigue. The aim of this study is to compare both scores in a sample of breast cancer patients. METHODS: We collected QLU-C10D and PROPr from 291 patients 90 days after treatment in the outpatient clinic of the breast cancer center at Charité - University Medicine Berlin between June 2018 and April 2021. We assessed both scores' convergent and known-groups validity, agreement, and ceiling and floor effects. RESULTS: The mean QLU-C10D score [0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.74] and the mean PROPr score (0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.46) differed systematically (0.28, 95% CI 0.27-0.30) and showed fair agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.57). The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86). Both scores showed similar discrimination across known groups of age, treatment, cancer stage, marital status, and education. The QLU-C10D showed relevant ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: QLU-C10D and PROPr measure HSU differently as a result of different utility models. The choice between QLU-C10D and PROPr should be informed by context, population, disease, and treatment.
背景与目的:EORTC 生活质量效用核心 10 维度(QLU-C10D)和患者报告结局测量信息系统偏好评分(PROPr)是用于成本效益分析的新健康状态效用(HSU)评分,用于调整质量调整生命年。两者都有望通过纳入癌症相关健康领域(如疲劳)来更全面地衡量癌症患者的 HSU,这是现有测量方法所无法做到的。本研究的目的是在乳腺癌患者样本中比较这两种评分。
方法:我们于 2018 年 6 月至 2021 年 4 月期间,在柏林夏里特大学医学中心的乳腺癌中心门诊收集了 291 名患者治疗后 90 天的 QLU-C10D 和 PROPr。我们评估了这两种评分的收敛性和已知组有效性、一致性以及天花板和地板效应。
结果:QLU-C10D 的平均评分[0.71,95%置信区间(CI)0.69-0.74]和 PROPr 的平均评分(0.43,95% CI 0.41-0.46)存在系统差异(0.28,95% CI 0.27-0.30),且具有适度一致性(组内相关系数 0.46,95% CI 0.32-0.57)。Pearson 相关系数为 0.83(95% CI 0.79-0.86)。两种评分在年龄、治疗、癌症分期、婚姻状况和教育程度等已知组中均具有相似的区分能力。QLU-C10D 显示出相关的天花板效应。
结论:QLU-C10D 和 PROPr 由于不同的效用模型而对 HSU 的测量方式不同。在 QLU-C10D 和 PROPr 之间的选择应根据背景、人群、疾病和治疗情况来决定。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021-10-2
Eur J Health Econ. 2023-8
Eur J Health Econ. 2024-7
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023-9-27