Mapping functions in health-related quality of life: mapping from the Achilles Tendon Rupture Score to the EQ-5D

Methodological Comparison of Mapping the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite to EuroQoL-5D-3L Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data: Secondary Analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415

PURPOSE

To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data.

METHODS

This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities.

RESULTS

A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased.

CONCLUSION

Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.

Mapping expanded prostate cancer index composite to EQ5D utilities to inform economic evaluations in prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415

PURPOSE

The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is the most commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials, but health utilities associated with the different health states assessed with this tool are unknown, limiting our ability to perform cost-utility analyses. This study aimed to map EPIC tool to EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ5D) to generate EQ5D health utilities.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, conducted between 04/2006 and 12/2009 at cancer centers across the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. Eligible patients included men >18 years with a known diagnosis of low-risk PC. Patient HRQoL data were collected using EPIC and health utilities were obtained using EQ5D. Data were divided into an estimation sample (n = 765, 70%) and a validation sample (n = 327, 30%). The mapping algorithms that capture the relationship between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and two-part models. Five-fold cross-validation (in-sample) was used to compare the predictive performance of the estimated models. Final models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE).

RESULTS

A total of 565 patients in the estimation sample had complete information on both EPIC and EQ5D questionnaires at baseline. Mean observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 (range: 0.28-1) with 55% of patients in full health. OLS models outperformed their counterpart Tobit and two-part models for all pre-determined model specifications. The best model fit was: "EQ5D utility = 0.248541 + 0.000748*(Urinary Function) + 0.001134*(Urinary Bother) + 0.000968*(Hormonal Function) + 0.004404*(Hormonal Bother)- 0.376487*(Zubrod) + 0.003562*(Urinary Function*Zubrod)"; RMSE was 0.10462.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to identify a comprehensive set of mapping algorithms to generate EQ5D utilities from EPIC domain/ sub-domain scores. The study results will help estimate quality-adjusted life-years in PC economic evaluations.

Development of algorithms to estimate EQ-5D and derive health utilities from WHOQOL-HIV Bref: a mapping study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop and evaluate different families of applicable models available for utility mapping between World Health Organization Quality of Life for HIV-abbreviated version (WHOQOL-HIV Bref) and EQ-5D-3L and to propose an optimised algorithm to estimate health utilities of people living with HIV.

METHODS

Estimation dataset was collected between July 2014 and September 2016 in a cross-sectional study including 1526 people living with HIV/Aids (PLWH) under care at the Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas-FIOCRUZ, in Brazil. Data of WHOQOL-HIV Bref and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires were collected. Fisher's exact tests were used for testing WHOQOL-HIV Bref response frequencies among groups of responses to each of the five EQ-5D-3L domains. Multiple correspondence analyses (MCA) were used to inspect the relationships between both instrument responses. Different families of applicable models available for utility mapping between WHOQOL-HIV Bref and EQ-5D-3L were adjusted for the prediction of disutility.

RESULTS

Candidate models' performances using mean absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE), and root mean squared error (RMSE) were similarly good, which was evidenced by the overlapping of its 95% confidence intervals of the mean tenfold cross-validation or estimated generalisation errors. However, the Hurdle Logistic-Log-Normal model was better on average according to generalisation errors both in the prediction of Brazilian utility values (MAE = 0.1037, MSE = 0.0178, and RMSE = 0.1332) and for those of the UK (MAE = 0.1476, MSE = 0.0443, and RMSE = 0.2099).

CONCLUSIONS

Mapping EQ-5D-3L responses or deriving health utilities directly from WHOQOL-HIV Bref responses can be a valid alternative for settings with no preference-based health utility data.

An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values

BACKGROUND

Mapping is an increasingly common method used to predict instrument-specific preference-based health-state utility values (HSUVs) from data obtained from another health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure. There have been several methodological developments in this area since a previous review up to 2007.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an updated review of all mapping studies that map from HRQoL measures to target generic preference-based measures (EQ-5D measures, SF-6D, HUI measures, QWB, AQoL measures, 15D/16D/17D, CHU-9D) published from January 2007 to October 2018.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of English language articles using a variety of approaches: searching electronic and utilities databases, citation searching, targeted journal and website searches.

STUDY SELECTION

Full papers of studies that mapped from one health measure to a target preference-based measure using formal statistical regression techniques.

DATA EXTRACTION

Undertaken by four authors using predefined data fields including measures, data used, econometric models and assessment of predictive ability.

RESULTS

There were 180 papers with 233 mapping functions in total. Mapping functions were generated to obtain EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L-EQ-5D-Y (n = 147), SF-6D (n = 45), AQoL-4D/AQoL-8D (n = 12), HUI2/HUI3 (n = 13), 15D (n = 8) CHU-9D (n = 4) and QWB-SA (n = 4) HSUVs. A large number of different regression methods were used with ordinary least squares (OLS) still being the most common approach (used ≥ 75% times within each preference-based measure). The majority of studies assessed the predictive ability of the mapping functions using mean absolute or root mean squared errors (n = 192, 82%), but this was lower when considering errors across different categories of severity (n = 92, 39%) and plots of predictions (n = 120, 52%).

CONCLUSIONS

The last 10 years has seen a substantial increase in the number of mapping studies and some evidence of advancement in methods with consideration of models beyond OLS and greater reporting of predictive ability of mapping functions.