文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

EORTC QLU-C10D 与 PROMIS 偏好评分在乳腺癌患者中的健康状态效用存在系统差异。

Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference Score.

机构信息

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.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Dec;152:101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.010. Epub 2022 Sep 24.


DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.010
PMID:36162712
Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

[1]
Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference Score.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2022-12

[2]
Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy.

Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021-10-2

[3]
Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire.

Qual Life Res. 2024-7

[4]
Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients.

Eur J Health Econ. 2023-8

[5]
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.

Pharmacoecon Open. 2024-7

[6]
Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30.

Pharmacoeconomics. 2018-2

[7]
Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D.

Qual Life Res. 2021-7

[8]
United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument.

Med Decis Making. 2021-5

[9]
The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study.

Eur J Health Econ. 2024-7

[10]
Assessing health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: factors impacting on EORTC QLU-C10D-derived utility values.

Qual Life Res. 2020-1-14

引用本文的文献

[1]
Assessing Quality of Life and Symptoms in Transplantation and CAR-T Recipients: Expert Panel Recommendations from the Survivorship Special Interest Group of ASTCT.

Transplant Cell Ther. 2025-7-1

[2]
Validation of the Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Measure EORTC QLU-C10D against the Generic Instruments EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in a Prospectively Collected Sample of Patients with Cancer in Austria and France.

Pharmacoeconomics. 2025-4-27

[3]
A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances.

Health Econ Rev. 2024-10-1

[4]
Assessing the reliability of a novel cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D) and comparing its validity to EQ-5D-5L in colorectal cancer patients.

Qual Life Res. 2024-12

[5]
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.

Pharmacoecon Open. 2024-7

[6]
Scale agreement, ceiling and floor effects, construct validity, and relative efficiency of the PROPr and EQ-5D-3L in low back pain patients.

Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023-9-27

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索