Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.
Gepubliceerd in:
03-09-2024
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
Auteurs: Yiyin Cao, Huan Zhang, Nan Luo, Haofei Li, Ling Jie Cheng, Weidong Huang
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2024
Log in om toegang te krijgenshare
DELEN
Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)
-
Optie A:
-
Optie B:Deel de link per e-mail
Abstract
Objective
To examine the test-retest reliability of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy − 8 Dimension (FACT-8D) for the first time, and to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the distribution properties and validity between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Patients.
Methods
We conducted a longitudinal study on Chinese CRC patients, employing Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, and FACT-G during follow-up (2–7 days from baseline). Utility scores for FACT-8D were derived from all available value sets (Australia, Canada and USA), while EQ-5D-5L scores were obtained from corresponding value sets for various countries. We assessed convergent validity using pairwise polychoric correlations between the FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L; known-groups validity by discriminating participants’ clinical characteristics, and effect size (ES) was tested; test-retest reliability for FACT-8D using kappa and weighted Kappa for choice consistency, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method for utility consistency.
Results
Among the 287 patients with CRC at baseline, 131 were included in the retest analysis. The utility scores of FACT-8D were highly positively correlated with EQ-5D-5L across various country value sets (r = 0.65–0.77), and most of the dimensions of FACT-8D and EQ-5D-5L were positively correlated. EQ-5D-5L failed to discriminate known-groups in cancer stage across all value sets, whereas both were significant in FACT-8D (ES = 0.35–0.48, ES = 0.38–0.52). FACT-8D showed good test–retest reliability (Cohen’s weighted Kappa = 0.494–0.722, ICC = 0.748–0.786).
Conclusion
The FACT-8D can be used as a valid and reliable instrument for clinical evaluation of patients with CRC, outperforming EQ-5D-5L in differentiating clinical subgroups and showing promise for cancer practice and research.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., & Bray, F. (2021). Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. C Ca: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(3), 209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossRef
Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., & Bray, F. (2021). Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. C Ca: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(3), 209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Chen, S., Cao, Z., Prettner, K., Kuhn, M., Yang, J., Jiao, L., Wang, Z., Li, W., Geldsetzer, P., Bärnighausen, T., Bloom, D. E., & Wang, C. (2023). Estimates and projections of the Global Economic cost of 29 cancers in 204 countries and territories from 2020 to 2050. JAMA Oncol, 9(4), 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.7826CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Chen, S., Cao, Z., Prettner, K., Kuhn, M., Yang, J., Jiao, L., Wang, Z., Li, W., Geldsetzer, P., Bärnighausen, T., Bloom, D. E., & Wang, C. (2023). Estimates and projections of the Global Economic cost of 29 cancers in 204 countries and territories from 2020 to 2050. JAMA Oncol, 9(4), 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.7826CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Van Cutsem, E., Borràs, J. M., Castells, A., Ciardiello, F., Ducreux, M., Haq, A., Schmoll, H. J., & Tabernero, J. (2013). Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer: Where do we go from here? European Journal of Cancer, 49(11), 2476–2485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.03.026CrossRefPubMed
Van Cutsem, E., Borràs, J. M., Castells, A., Ciardiello, F., Ducreux, M., Haq, A., Schmoll, H. J., & Tabernero, J. (2013). Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer: Where do we go from here? European Journal of Cancer, 49(11), 2476–2485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.03.026CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Färkkilä, N., Torvinen, S., Sintonen, H., Saarto, T., Järvinen, H., Hänninen, J., Taari, K., & Roine, R. P. (2015). Costs of colorectal cancer in different states of the disease. Acta Oncologica, 54(4), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2014.985797CrossRefPubMed
Färkkilä, N., Torvinen, S., Sintonen, H., Saarto, T., Järvinen, H., Hänninen, J., Taari, K., & Roine, R. P. (2015). Costs of colorectal cancer in different states of the disease. Acta Oncologica, 54(4), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2014.985797CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Heintz, E., Gerber-Grote, A., Ghabri, S., Hamers, F. F., Rupel, V. P., Slabe-Erker, R., & Davidson, T. (2016). Is there a European view on Health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0328-1CrossRefPubMed
Heintz, E., Gerber-Grote, A., Ghabri, S., Hamers, F. F., Rupel, V. P., Slabe-Erker, R., & Davidson, T. (2016). Is there a European view on Health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0328-1CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bracco, A., & Krol, M. (2013). Economic evaluations in European reimbursement submission guidelines: Current status and comparisons. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 13(5), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2013.837766CrossRefPubMed
Bracco, A., & Krol, M. (2013). Economic evaluations in European reimbursement submission guidelines: Current status and comparisons. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 13(5), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2013.837766CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Mauskopf, J., Walter, J., Birt, J., Bowman, L., Copley-Merriman, C., & Drummond, M. (2011). Differences among formulary submission guidelines: Implications for health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462311000274CrossRefPubMed
Mauskopf, J., Walter, J., Birt, J., Bowman, L., Copley-Merriman, C., & Drummond, M. (2011). Differences among formulary submission guidelines: Implications for health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462311000274CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference National Institute for, H., &, & Care, E. (2013). NICE process and methods Guides. Guide to the methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
National Institute for, H., &, & Care, E. (2013). NICE process and methods Guides. Guide to the methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
9.
go back to reference Copyright ©. (2013). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.
Copyright ©. (2013). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.
10.
go back to reference Cher, B. P., Goh, S., Aziz, M. I. A., Wong, G., Ng Chee Hui, R., Ong, B. S., & Ng, K. H. (2024). Cost-utility analysis of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Singapore. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 24(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2291155CrossRefPubMed
Cher, B. P., Goh, S., Aziz, M. I. A., Wong, G., Ng Chee Hui, R., Ong, B. S., & Ng, K. H. (2024). Cost-utility analysis of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in Singapore. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 24(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2291155CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Sahakyan, Y., Li, Q., Alibhai, S. M. H., Puts, M., Yeretzian, S. T., Anwar, M. R., Brennenstuhl, S., McLean, B., Strohschein, F., Tomlinson, G., Wills, A., & Abrahamyan, L. (2024). Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in older adults with Cancer: Economic evaluation within 5 C trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.23.00930CrossRefPubMed
Sahakyan, Y., Li, Q., Alibhai, S. M. H., Puts, M., Yeretzian, S. T., Anwar, M. R., Brennenstuhl, S., McLean, B., Strohschein, F., Tomlinson, G., Wills, A., & Abrahamyan, L. (2024). Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in older adults with Cancer: Economic evaluation within 5 C trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.23.00930CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Mirzayeh Fashami, F., Levine, M., Xie, F., Blackhouse, G., & Tarride, J. E. (2023). Olaparib versus Placebo in maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-Mutated metastatic pancreatic Cancer: A cost-utility analysis from the Canadian Public Payer’s perspective. Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 30(5), 4688–4699. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30050354CrossRefPubMed
Mirzayeh Fashami, F., Levine, M., Xie, F., Blackhouse, G., & Tarride, J. E. (2023). Olaparib versus Placebo in maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-Mutated metastatic pancreatic Cancer: A cost-utility analysis from the Canadian Public Payer’s perspective. Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 30(5), 4688–4699. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30050354CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Poulsen Nautrup, B. (2011). [Pharmacoeconomics in uro-oncology: The concept of QALYs]. Urologe A, 50(12), 1573–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2731-3(Pharmakoökonomie in der Uroonkologie: Das QALY-Konzept.).CrossRefPubMed
Poulsen Nautrup, B. (2011). [Pharmacoeconomics in uro-oncology: The concept of QALYs]. Urologe A, 50(12), 1573–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2731-3(Pharmakoökonomie in der Uroonkologie: Das QALY-Konzept.).CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., Busschbach, J., & Boye, K. S. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21(8), 1245–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., Busschbach, J., & Boye, K. S. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21(8), 1245–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Oppe, M., Slaap, B., Busschbach, J. J., & Stolk, E. (2017). Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(3), 466–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012CrossRefPubMed
Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Oppe, M., Slaap, B., Busschbach, J. J., & Stolk, E. (2017). Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(3), 466–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Rowen, D., Azzabi Zouraq, I., Chevrou-Severac, H., & van Hout, B. (2017). International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0544-yCrossRefPubMed
Rowen, D., Azzabi Zouraq, I., Chevrou-Severac, H., & van Hout, B. (2017). International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0544-yCrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Carroll, L., Benson, G., Lambert, J., Benmedjahed, K., Zak, M., & Lee, X. Y. (2019). Real-world utilities and health-related quality-of-life data in hemophilia patients in France and the United Kingdom. Patient Preference and Adherence, 13, 941–957. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.S202773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Carroll, L., Benson, G., Lambert, J., Benmedjahed, K., Zak, M., & Lee, X. Y. (2019). Real-world utilities and health-related quality-of-life data in hemophilia patients in France and the United Kingdom. Patient Preference and Adherence, 13, 941–957. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.S202773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Zeng, X., Sui, M., Liu, B., Yang, H., Liu, R., Tan, R. L., Xu, J., Zheng, E., Yang, J., Liu, C., Huang, W., Yu, H., & Luo, N. (2021). Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in six commonly diagnosed cancers. Patient, 14(2), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00466-zCrossRefPubMed
Zeng, X., Sui, M., Liu, B., Yang, H., Liu, R., Tan, R. L., Xu, J., Zheng, E., Yang, J., Liu, C., Huang, W., Yu, H., & Luo, N. (2021). Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in six commonly diagnosed cancers. Patient, 14(2), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00466-zCrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Garau, M., Shah, K. K., Mason, A. R., Wang, Q., Towse, A., & Drummond, M. F. (2011). Using QALYs in cancer: A review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics, 29, 673–685.CrossRefPubMed
Garau, M., Shah, K. K., Mason, A. R., Wang, Q., Towse, A., & Drummond, M. F. (2011). Using QALYs in cancer: A review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics, 29, 673–685.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Marriott, E. R., van Hazel, G., Gibbs, P., & Hatswell, A. J. (2017). Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L in patients with colorectal cancer. Journal of Medical Economics, 20(2), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1241788CrossRefPubMed
Marriott, E. R., van Hazel, G., Gibbs, P., & Hatswell, A. J. (2017). Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L in patients with colorectal cancer. Journal of Medical Economics, 20(2), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1241788CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Ara, R., & Zouraq, A., I (2017). The role of Condition-Specific preference-based measures in Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0546-9CrossRefPubMed
Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Ara, R., & Zouraq, A., I (2017). The role of Condition-Specific preference-based measures in Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0546-9CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., Swinburn, P., & Busschbach, J. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4CrossRefPubMed
Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., Swinburn, P., & Busschbach, J. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Chen, G., & Olsen, J. A. (2020). Filling the psycho-social gap in the EQ-5D: The empirical support for four bolt-on dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 29(11), 3119–3129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02576-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Chen, G., & Olsen, J. A. (2020). Filling the psycho-social gap in the EQ-5D: The empirical support for four bolt-on dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 29(11), 3119–3129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02576-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernández Alava, M., Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Tosh, J., Tsuchiya, A., Evans, P., Devianee Keetharuth, A., & Brazier, J. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment, 18(9), 1–224. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090CrossRefPubMed
Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernández Alava, M., Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Tosh, J., Tsuchiya, A., Evans, P., Devianee Keetharuth, A., & Brazier, J. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment, 18(9), 1–224. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference King, M. T., Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Costa, D. S. J., McTaggart-Cowan, H., Peacock, S., Janda, M., Müller, F., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., & Cella, D. (2021). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 24(6), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.007CrossRefPubMed
King, M. T., Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Costa, D. S. J., McTaggart-Cowan, H., Peacock, S., Janda, M., Müller, F., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., & Cella, D. (2021). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 24(6), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.007CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., Brannon, J., et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1993.11.3.570CrossRefPubMed
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., Brannon, J., et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1993.11.3.570CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., Costa, D. S. J., Pickard, A. S., Viney, R., & Peacock, S. J. (2022). The FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific utility algorithm based on the Functional Assessment of Cancer therapies-General (FACT-G): A Canadian valuation study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 20(1), 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02002-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., Costa, D. S. J., Pickard, A. S., Viney, R., & Peacock, S. J. (2022). The FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific utility algorithm based on the Functional Assessment of Cancer therapies-General (FACT-G): A Canadian valuation study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 20(1), 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02002-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference King, M. T., Revicki, D. A., Norman, R., Müller, F., Viney, R. C., Pickard, A. S., Cella, D., & Shaw, J. W. (2024). United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General eight dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-specific preference-based quality of Life Instrument. Pharmacoecon Open, 8(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00448-5CrossRefPubMed
King, M. T., Revicki, D. A., Norman, R., Müller, F., Viney, R. C., Pickard, A. S., Cella, D., & Shaw, J. W. (2024). United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General eight dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-specific preference-based quality of Life Instrument. Pharmacoecon Open, 8(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00448-5CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., Loth, F. L. C., Holzner, B., & Kemmler, G. (2022). The EORTC QLU-C10D discrete choice experiment for cancer patients: A first step towards patient utility weights. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00430-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., Loth, F. L. C., Holzner, B., & Kemmler, G. (2022). The EORTC QLU-C10D discrete choice experiment for cancer patients: A first step towards patient utility weights. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00430-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Pilz, M. J., Seyringer, S., Hallsson, L. R., Bottomley, A., Jansen, F., King, M. T., Norman, R., Rutten, M. J., Leeuw, I. M. V., Siersema, P. D., & Gamper, E. M. (2024). The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands. The European Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01670-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Pilz, M. J., Seyringer, S., Hallsson, L. R., Bottomley, A., Jansen, F., King, M. T., Norman, R., Rutten, M. J., Leeuw, I. M. V., Siersema, P. D., & Gamper, E. M. (2024). The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands. The European Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01670-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Herdman, M., Kerr, C., Pavesi, M., Garside, J., Lloyd, A., Cubi-Molla, P., & Devlin, N. (2020). Testing the validity and responsiveness of a new cancer-specific health utility measure (FACT-8D) in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, and comparison to EQ-5D-5L. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 4(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-0185-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Herdman, M., Kerr, C., Pavesi, M., Garside, J., Lloyd, A., Cubi-Molla, P., & Devlin, N. (2020). Testing the validity and responsiveness of a new cancer-specific health utility measure (FACT-8D) in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, and comparison to EQ-5D-5L. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 4(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-0185-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Oken, M. M., Creech, R. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., & Carbone, P. P. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–655.CrossRefPubMed
Oken, M. M., Creech, R. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., & Carbone, P. P. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–655.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959–976. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291702006074CrossRefPubMed
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S. L., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959–976. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291702006074CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087CrossRefPubMed
Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Jakobsen, J. C., Gluud, C., Wetterslev, J., & Winkel, P. (2017). When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts. Bmc Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Jakobsen, J. C., Gluud, C., Wetterslev, J., & Winkel, P. (2017). When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts. Bmc Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
go back to reference Yost, K. J., Thompson, C. A., Eton, D. T., Allmer, C., Ehlers, S. L., Habermann, T. M., Shanafelt, T. D., Maurer, M. J., Slager, S. L., Link, B. K., & Cerhan, J. R. (2013). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) is valid for monitoring quality of life in patients with non-hodgkin lymphoma. Leukaemia & Lymphoma, 54(2), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2012.711830CrossRef
Yost, K. J., Thompson, C. A., Eton, D. T., Allmer, C., Ehlers, S. L., Habermann, T. M., Shanafelt, T. D., Maurer, M. J., Slager, S. L., Link, B. K., & Cerhan, J. R. (2013). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) is valid for monitoring quality of life in patients with non-hodgkin lymphoma. Leukaemia & Lymphoma, 54(2), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2012.711830CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Yu, C. L., Fielding, R., Chan, C. L., Tse, V. K., Choi, P. H., Lau, W. H., Choy, D. T., Lee, O. S. K., A. W., & Sham, J. S. (2000). Measuring quality of life of Chinese cancer patients: A validation of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale. Cancer, 88(7), 1715–1727.CrossRefPubMed
Yu, C. L., Fielding, R., Chan, C. L., Tse, V. K., Choi, P. H., Lau, W. H., Choy, D. T., Lee, O. S. K., A. W., & Sham, J. S. (2000). Measuring quality of life of Chinese cancer patients: A validation of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale. Cancer, 88(7), 1715–1727.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Norman, R., Mulhern, B., Lancsar, E., Lorgelly, P., Ratcliffe, J., Street, D., & Viney, R. (2023). The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including both Duration and Dead for the development of an EQ-5D-5L value set for Australia. Pharmacoeconomics, 41(4), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01243-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Norman, R., Mulhern, B., Lancsar, E., Lorgelly, P., Ratcliffe, J., Street, D., & Viney, R. (2023). The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including both Duration and Dead for the development of an EQ-5D-5L value set for Australia. Pharmacoeconomics, 41(4), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01243-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., & Johnson, J. A. (2016). A Time Trade-off-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000000447CrossRefPubMed
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., & Johnson, J. A. (2016). A Time Trade-off-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000000447CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Pickard, A. S., Law, E. H., Jiang, R., Pullenayegum, E., Shaw, J. W., Xie, F., Oppe, M., Boye, K. S., Chapman, R. H., Gong, C. L., Balch, A., & Busschbach, J. J. V. (2019). United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States using an International Protocol. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 22(8), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009CrossRefPubMed
Pickard, A. S., Law, E. H., Jiang, R., Pullenayegum, E., Shaw, J. W., Xie, F., Oppe, M., Boye, K. S., Chapman, R. H., Gong, C. L., Balch, A., & Busschbach, J. J. V. (2019). United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States using an International Protocol. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 22(8), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Epskamp, S., & Fried, E. I. (2018). A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000167CrossRefPubMed
Epskamp, S., & Fried, E. I. (2018). A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000167CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (1990). Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 14(1), 71.
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (1990). Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 14(1), 71.
43.
go back to reference Andrews, G., & Slade, T. (2001). Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(6), 494–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00310.xCrossRefPubMed
Andrews, G., & Slade, T. (2001). Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(6), 494–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00310.xCrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
45.
go back to reference Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., Liu, R., Tan, R. L., Yang, J., Huang, W., & Luo, N. (2021). A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02644-wCrossRefPubMed
Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., Liu, R., Tan, R. L., Yang, J., Huang, W., & Luo, N. (2021). A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02644-wCrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Klapproth, C. P., Fischer, F., Rose, M., & Karsten, M. M. (2022). Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference score. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 152, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.010CrossRefPubMed
Klapproth, C. P., Fischer, F., Rose, M., & Karsten, M. M. (2022). Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference score. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 152, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.010CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefPubMed
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.CrossRefPubMed
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1(8476), 307–310.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Mokkink, L. B., Eekhout, I., Boers, M., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2023). Studies on reliability and measurement error of measurements in medicine - from design to statistics explained for Medical Researchers. Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 14, 193–212. https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.S398886CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Mokkink, L. B., Eekhout, I., Boers, M., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2023). Studies on reliability and measurement error of measurements in medicine - from design to statistics explained for Medical Researchers. Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 14, 193–212. https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.S398886CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
go back to reference Robinson, A., Spencer, A. E., Pinto-Prades, J. L., & Covey, J. A. (2017). Exploring differences between TTO and DCE in the valuation of Health states. Medical Decision Making, 37(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x16668343CrossRefPubMed
Robinson, A., Spencer, A. E., Pinto-Prades, J. L., & Covey, J. A. (2017). Exploring differences between TTO and DCE in the valuation of Health states. Medical Decision Making, 37(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x16668343CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Gamper, E. M., Cottone, F., Sommer, K., Norman, R., King, M., Breccia, M., Caocci, G., Patriarca, A., Palumbo, G. A., Stauder, R., Niscola, P., Platzbecker, U., Caers, J., Vignetti, M., & Efficace, F. (2021). The EORTC QLU-C10D was more efficient in detecting clinical known group differences in myelodysplastic syndromes than the EQ-5D-3L. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 137, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.015CrossRefPubMed
Gamper, E. M., Cottone, F., Sommer, K., Norman, R., King, M., Breccia, M., Caocci, G., Patriarca, A., Palumbo, G. A., Stauder, R., Niscola, P., Platzbecker, U., Caers, J., Vignetti, M., & Efficace, F. (2021). The EORTC QLU-C10D was more efficient in detecting clinical known group differences in myelodysplastic syndromes than the EQ-5D-3L. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 137, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.015CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Stevens, K. (2009). Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1105–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9524-9CrossRefPubMed
Stevens, K. (2009). Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1105–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9524-9CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Cella, D., Rosenbloom, S. K., Beaumont, J. L., Yount, S. E., Paul, D., Hampton, D., Abernethy, A. P., Jacobsen, P. B., Syrjala, K., & Von Roenn, J. H. (2011). Development and validation of 11 symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 9(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2011.0026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Cella, D., Rosenbloom, S. K., Beaumont, J. L., Yount, S. E., Paul, D., Hampton, D., Abernethy, A. P., Jacobsen, P. B., Syrjala, K., & Von Roenn, J. H. (2011). Development and validation of 11 symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 9(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2011.0026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
go back to reference Yanez, B., Pearman, T., Lis, C. G., Beaumont, J. L., & Cella, D. (2013). The FACT-G7: A rapid version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) for monitoring symptoms and concerns in oncology practice and research. Annals of Oncology, 24(4), 1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds539CrossRefPubMed
Yanez, B., Pearman, T., Lis, C. G., Beaumont, J. L., & Cella, D. (2013). The FACT-G7: A rapid version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) for monitoring symptoms and concerns in oncology practice and research. Annals of Oncology, 24(4), 1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds539CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Gibson, A. E. J., Longworth, L., Bennett, B., Pickard, A. S., & Shaw, J. W. (2024). Assessing the content validity of preference-based measures in Cancer. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 27(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.10.006CrossRefPubMed
Gibson, A. E. J., Longworth, L., Bennett, B., Pickard, A. S., & Shaw, J. W. (2024). Assessing the content validity of preference-based measures in Cancer. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 27(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.10.006CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference Crowder, S. L., Li, X., Himbert, C., Viskochil, R., Hoogland, A. I., Gudenkauf, L. M., Oswald, L. B., Gonzalez, B. D., Small, B. J., Ulrich, C. M., Ose, J., Peoples, A. R., Li, C. I., Shibata, D., Toriola, A. T., Gigic, B., Playdon, M. C., Hardikar, S., Bower, J., Siegel, E. M., Figueiredo, J. C., & Jim, H. S. L. (2024). Relationships among Physical Activity, Sleep, and Cancer-related fatigue: Results from the International ColoCare Study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 58(3), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad068CrossRefPubMed
Crowder, S. L., Li, X., Himbert, C., Viskochil, R., Hoogland, A. I., Gudenkauf, L. M., Oswald, L. B., Gonzalez, B. D., Small, B. J., Ulrich, C. M., Ose, J., Peoples, A. R., Li, C. I., Shibata, D., Toriola, A. T., Gigic, B., Playdon, M. C., Hardikar, S., Bower, J., Siegel, E. M., Figueiredo, J. C., & Jim, H. S. L. (2024). Relationships among Physical Activity, Sleep, and Cancer-related fatigue: Results from the International ColoCare Study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 58(3), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad068CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Ye, Y., Zeng, K., Qin, L., Luo, J., Liu, S., Miao, J., Liang, J., Yu, Y., Zhao, M., & Zhang, L. (2024). Differential characteristics of fatigue-Pain-Sleep disturbance-depression Symptom Cluster and influencing factors of patients with Advanced Cancer during treatment: A latent class analysis. Cancer Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0000000000001316CrossRefPubMed
Ye, Y., Zeng, K., Qin, L., Luo, J., Liu, S., Miao, J., Liang, J., Yu, Y., Zhao, M., & Zhang, L. (2024). Differential characteristics of fatigue-Pain-Sleep disturbance-depression Symptom Cluster and influencing factors of patients with Advanced Cancer during treatment: A latent class analysis. Cancer Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0000000000001316CrossRefPubMed
58.
go back to reference Lorgelly, P. K., Doble, B., Rowen, D., & Brazier, J. (2017). Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L. Quality of Life Research, 26(5), 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1443-yCrossRefPubMed
Lorgelly, P. K., Doble, B., Rowen, D., & Brazier, J. (2017). Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L. Quality of Life Research, 26(5), 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1443-yCrossRefPubMed
59.
go back to reference van Dongen-Leunis, A., Redekop, W. K., & Uyl-de Groot, C. A. (2016). Which Questionnaire should be used to measure quality-of-life utilities in patients with Acute Leukemia? An evaluation of the validity and interpretability of the EQ-5D-5L and preference-based questionnaires derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(6), 834–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.008CrossRefPubMed
van Dongen-Leunis, A., Redekop, W. K., & Uyl-de Groot, C. A. (2016). Which Questionnaire should be used to measure quality-of-life utilities in patients with Acute Leukemia? An evaluation of the validity and interpretability of the EQ-5D-5L and preference-based questionnaires derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value In Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(6), 834–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.008CrossRefPubMed
60.
go back to reference King, M. T., Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Fayers, P. M., Grimison, P., Janda, M., Kemmler, G., Norman, R., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Velikova, G., Young, T. A., & Viney, R. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-yCrossRefPubMed
King, M. T., Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Fayers, P. M., Grimison, P., Janda, M., Kemmler, G., Norman, R., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Velikova, G., Young, T. A., & Viney, R. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-yCrossRefPubMed
61.
go back to reference Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., & Velikova, G. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health, 14(5), 721–731.CrossRefPubMed
Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., & Velikova, G. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health, 14(5), 721–731.CrossRefPubMed
62.
go back to reference Kobayashi, M., Kajiwara, K., Morikawa, M., Kanno, Y., Nakano, K., Matsuda, Y., Shimizu, Y., Shimazu, T., & Kako, J. (2023). Nursing Support for Nausea and vomiting in patients with Cancer: A scoping review. Cureus, 15(11), e48212. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.48212CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kobayashi, M., Kajiwara, K., Morikawa, M., Kanno, Y., Nakano, K., Matsuda, Y., Shimizu, Y., Shimazu, T., & Kako, J. (2023). Nursing Support for Nausea and vomiting in patients with Cancer: A scoping review. Cureus, 15(11), e48212. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.48212CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
go back to reference Wu, Z., Fu, X., Jing, H., Huang, W., Li, X., Xiao, C., Li, Z., & You, F. (2024). Herbal medicine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 325, 117853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2024.117853CrossRefPubMed
Wu, Z., Fu, X., Jing, H., Huang, W., Li, X., Xiao, C., Li, Z., & You, F. (2024). Herbal medicine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 325, 117853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2024.117853CrossRefPubMed
64.
go back to reference Zhou, W., Shen, A., Yang, Z., Wang, P., Wu, B., Herdman, M., & Luo, N. (2021). Patient-caregiver agreement and test-retest reliability of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in paediatric patients with haematological malignancies. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(7), 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01309-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zhou, W., Shen, A., Yang, Z., Wang, P., Wu, B., Herdman, M., & Luo, N. (2021). Patient-caregiver agreement and test-retest reliability of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L in paediatric patients with haematological malignancies. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(7), 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01309-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
go back to reference Shaw, J. W., Bennett, B., Trigg, A., DeRosa, M., Taylor, F., Kiff, C., Ntais, D., Noon, K., King, M. T., & Cocks, K. (2021). EQ-5D-3L, Mapping to the EQ-5D-5L, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions. Value In Health: The Journal Of The International Society For Pharmacoeconomics And Outcomes Research, 24(11), 1651–1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.05.022. A Comparison of Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures Using Data From Nivolumab Trials.
Shaw, J. W., Bennett, B., Trigg, A., DeRosa, M., Taylor, F., Kiff, C., Ntais, D., Noon, K., King, M. T., & Cocks, K. (2021). EQ-5D-3L, Mapping to the EQ-5D-5L, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions. Value In Health: The Journal Of The International Society For Pharmacoeconomics And Outcomes Research, 24(11), 1651–1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.05.022. A Comparison of Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures Using Data From Nivolumab Trials.
66.
go back to reference Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 15(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(95)00038-0CrossRefPubMed
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 15(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(95)00038-0CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
- Titel
- 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
- Auteurs
-
Yiyin Cao
Huan Zhang
Nan Luo
Haofei Li
Ling Jie Cheng
Weidong Huang
- Publicatiedatum
- 03-09-2024
- Uitgeverij
- Springer International Publishing
- Gepubliceerd in
-
Quality of Life Research
/ Uitgave 12/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649 - DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03774-1
