Background. Clinical trials in cancer frequently include cancer-specific measures of health but not preference-based measures such as the EQ-5D that are suitable for economic evaluation. Mapping functions have been developed to predict EQ-5D values from these measures, but there is considerable uncertainty about the most appropriate model to use, and many existing models are poor at predicting EQ-5D values. This study aims to investigate a range of potential models to develop mapping functions from 2 widely used cancer-specific measures (FACT-G and EORTC-QLQ-C30) and to identify the best model.
Methods. Mapping models are fitted to predict EQ-5D-3L values using ordinary least squares (OLS), tobit, 2-part models, splining, and to EQ-5D item-level responses using response mapping from the FACT-G and QLQ-C30. A variety of model specifications are estimated. Model performance and predictive ability are compared. Analysis is based on 530 patients with various cancers for the FACT-G and 771 patients with multiple myeloma, breast cancer, and lung cancer for the QLQ-C30.
Results. For FACT-G, OLS models most accurately predict mean EQ-5D values with the best predicting model using FACT-G items with similar results using tobit. Response mapping has low predictive ability. In contrast, for the QLQ-C30, response mapping has the most accurate predictions using QLQ-C30 dimensions. The QLQ-C30 has better predicted EQ-5D values across the range of possible values; however, few respondents in the FACT-G data set have low EQ-5D values, which reduces the accuracy at the severe end.
Conclusions. OLS and tobit mapping functions perform well for both instruments. Response mapping gives the best model predictions for QLQ-C30. The generalizability of the FACT-G mapping function is limited to populations in moderate to good health.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)