Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Health Utilities Using the EQ-5D in Studies of Cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cancer is one of the most frequent disease-specific applications of the EQ-5D. The objective of this review was to summarise evidence to support the validity and reliability of the EQ-5D in cancer, and to provide a catalogue of utility scores based on the use of the EQ-5D in clinical trials and in studies of patients with cancer.

A structured literature search was conducted in EMBASE and MEDLINE to identify papers using key words related to cancer and the EQ-5D. Original research studies of patients with cancer that reported EQ-5D psychometric properties, responses and/or summary scores were included.

Of 57 identified articles, 34 were selected for inclusion, where 12 studies reported evidence of validity or reliability and 31 reported EQ-5D responses or summary scores. The majority of investigations using the EQ-5D concerned patients with prostate cancer (n = 4), breast cancer (n = 4), cancers of the digestive system (n = 7) and Hodgkin and/or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 3). Mean index based scores ranged from 0.33 (SD 0.4) to 0.93 (SD 0.12) and visual analogue scale scores ranged from 43 (SD 13.3) to 84 (SD 12.0) across subtypes of cancer.

A substantial and growing body of literature using the EQ-5D in cancer that supports the validity and reliability of EQ-5D in cancer has emerged. This review provides utility estimates for cancer patients across a wide range of cancer subtypes, treatment regimens and tumour stage(s) that may inform the modelling of outcomes in economic evaluations of cancer treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Cancer Report. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003

  2. Jemal A, Murphy T, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 10–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85 (5): 365–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. de Haes J, Curran D, Young T, et al. Quality of life evaluation in oncological clinical trials: the EORTC model. The EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36 (7): 821–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1 (1): 79 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/79 [Accessed 2007 Apr 19]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multiattribute health-status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 490–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33 (5): 337–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095–1108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002; 11 (4): 341–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 2005; 43 (7): 736–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18 (18): 3302–3317

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (UK). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201973 [Accessed 2007 Apr 17]

    Google Scholar 

  13. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine: Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276 (14): 1172–1177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354 (9193): 1896–1900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee SH, Kim DJ, Oh JH, et al. Validation of a functional evaluation system in patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 411: 217–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van Roijen L, Nijs HG, Avezaat CJ, et al. Costs and effects of microsurgery versus radiosurgery in treating acoustic neuroma. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1997; 139 (10): 942–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Conner-Spady BL, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, et al. A longitudinal prospective study of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2005; 36 (3): 251–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jansen SJ, Otten W, van de Velde CJ, et al. The impact of the perception of treatment choice on satisfaction with treatment, experienced chemotherapy burden and current quality of life. Br J Cancer 2004; 91 (1): 56–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Polsky D, Keating NL, Weeks JC, et al. Patient choice of breast cancer treatment: impact on health state preferences. Med Care 2002; 40 (11): 1068–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Verkooijen HM, Buskens E, Peeters PH, et al. Diagnosing non-palpable breast disease: short-term impact on quality of life of large-core needle biopsy versus open breast biopsy. Surg Oncol 2002; 10 (4): 177–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamashima C. Long-term quality of life of postoperative rectal cancer patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 17 (5): 571–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Norum J, Vonen B, Olsen JA, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil and levamisole) in Dukes’ B and C colorectal carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Oncol 1997; 8 (1): 65–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Homs MY, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, et al. Quality of life after palliative treatment for oesophageal carcinoma: a prospective comparison between stent placement and single dose brachytherapy. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40 (12): 1862–1871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wildi SM, Cox MH, Clark LL, et al. Assessment of health state utilities and quality of life in patients with malignant esophageal dysphagia. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99 (6): 1044–1049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Krabbe PF, Peerenboom L, Langenhoff BS, et al. Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30. Qual Life Res 2004; 13 (7): 1247–1253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McMillan DC, Wigmore SJ, Fearon KC, et al. A prospective randomized study of megestrol acetate and ibuprofen in gastrointestinal cancer patients with weight loss. Br J Cancer 1999; 79 (3–4): 495–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. O’Gorman P, McMillan DC, McArdle CS. Impact of weight loss, appetite, and the inflammatory response on quality of life in gastrointestinal cancer patients. Nutr Cancer 1998; 32 (2): 76–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schneider SM, Pouget I, Staccini P, et al. Quality of life in long-term home enteral nutrition patients. Clin Nutr 2000; 19 (1): 23–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Doorduijn J, Buijt I, Holt B, et al. Self-reported quality of life in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with CHOP chemotherapy. Eur J Haematol 2005; 75 (2): 116–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Norum J, Angelsen V, Wist E, et al. Treatment costs in Hodgkin’s disease: a cost-utility analysis. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A (9): 1510–1517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. van Agthoven M, Vellenga E, Fibbe WE, et al. Cost analysis and quality of life assessment comparing patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation or autologous bone marrow transplantation for refractory or relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or Hodgkin’s disease: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37 (14): 1781–1789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Uyl-de Groot CA, Buijt I, Gloudemans IJ, et al. Health related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing a double transplantation. Eur J Haematol 2005; 74 (2): 136–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bertaccini A, Ceccarelli R, Urbinati M, et al. BSP-PC (Bononian Satisfaction Profile-Prostate Cancer): development and validation of a’ disease-specific’ questionnaire for the evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2003; 75 (4): 187–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 2005; 116 (2): 291–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sandblom G, Carlsson P, Sigsjo P, et al. Pain and health-related quality of life in a geographically defined population of men with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2001; 85 (4): 497–503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sandblom G, Carlsson P, Sennfalt K, et al. A population-based study of pain and quality of life during the year before death in men with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2004; 90 (6): 1163–1168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Lucioni C, et al. Quality of life and utility in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: Quality-of-life Study Group of the Master 2 Project in Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (8): 855–863

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ananth H, Jones L, King M, et al. The impact of cancer on sexual function: a controlled study. Palliat Med 2003; 17 (2): 202–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mantovani G, Madeddu C, Maccio A, et al. Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia syndrome and oxidative stress: an innovative approach beyond current treatment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004; 13 (10): 1651–1659

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Slovacek L, Slovackova B, Jebavy L. Global quality of life in patients who have undergone the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: finding from transversal and retrospective study. Exp Oncol 2005; 27 (3): 238–242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ravasco P, Monteiro-Grillo I, Camilo ME. Does nutrition influence quality of life in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy? Radiother Oncol 2003; 67 (2): 213–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Norum J. Quality of life (QoL) measurement in economical analysis in cancer: a comparison of the EuroQol questionnaire, a simple QoL-scale and the global QoL measure of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Oncol Rep 1996; 3 (4): 787–791

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Weze C, Leathard HL, Grange J, et al. Evaluation of healing by gentle touch in 35 clients with cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2004; 8 (1): 40–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Desandes E, Conroy T, Briancon S, et al. Relationship between quality of life and satisfaction with care in patients treated in a Regional Centre Against Cancer. Revue Francophone de Psycho-Oncologie 2005; 4 (1): 29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (3): 177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Conner-Spady B, Cumming C, Nabholtz JM, et al. Responsiveness of the EuroQol in breast cancer patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy. Qual Life Res 2001; 10 (6): 479–486

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Gerard K, Johnston K, Brown J. The role of a pre-scored multi-attribute health classification measure in validating condition-specific health state descriptions. Health Econ 1999; 8 (8): 685–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002; 11 (4): 341–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dankova I, Dlouhy M. The measurement of health status with Czech version of European quality of life questionnaire: version EQ-5D. Czech Health Policy Econ 2001; 2: 18

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D2 valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43 (3): 203–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38 (6): 583–637

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, et al. Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Med Care 2005; 43 (11): 1078–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 1998; 7 (2): 155–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 2000; 38 (1): 115–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from the EuroQol Group. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Pharmacy, Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research and Departments of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacy Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    A. Simon Pickard, Caitlyn T. Wilke & Hsiang-Wen Lin

  2. Midwest Center for Health Services and Policy Research, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, USA

    A. Simon Pickard

  3. United BioSource Corporation, Health Care Analytics Group, London, UK

    Andrew Lloyd

Authors
  1. A. Simon Pickard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caitlyn T. Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsiang-Wen Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Simon Pickard.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pickard, A.S., Wilke, C.T., Lin, HW. et al. Health Utilities Using the EQ-5D in Studies of Cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 25, 365–384 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725050-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation