Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Oct 2;19(1):233.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01867-w.

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

Norma B Bulamu  1 , Ravi Vissapragada  1   2 , Gang Chen  3 , Julie Ratcliffe  4 , Louise A Mudge  5 , B Mark Smithers  6 , Elizabeth A Isenring  7 , Lorelle Smith  8 , Glyn G Jamieson  5 , David I Watson  9   10 ; Australian Immunonutrition Study Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Norma B Bulamu et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. .

Abstract

Aim: This study assessed the responsiveness and convergent validity of two preference-based measures; the newly developed cancer-specific EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) relative to the generic three-level version of the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) in evaluating short-term health related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes after esophagectomy.

Methods: Participants were enrolled in a multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine the impact of preoperative and postoperative immunonutrition versus standard nutrition in patients with esophageal cancer. HRQoL was assessed seven days before and 42 days after esophagectomy. Standardized Response Mean and Effect Size were calculated to assess responsiveness. Ceiling effects for each dimension were calculated as the proportion of the best level responses for that dimension at follow-up/post-operatively. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation and the level of agreement was explored using Bland-Altman plots.

Results: Data from 164 respondents (mean age: 63 years, 81% male) were analysed. HRQoL significantly reduced on both measures with large effect sizes (> 0.80), and a greater mean difference (0.29 compared to 0.16) on QLU-C10D. Both measures had ceiling effects (> 15%) on all dimensions at baseline. Following esophagectomy, ceiling effects were observed with self-care (86%), mobility (67%), anxiety/depression (55%) and pain/discomfort (19%) dimensions on EQ-5D-3L. For QLU-C10D ceiling effects were observed with emotional function (53%), physical function (16%), nausea (35%), sleep (31%), bowel problems (21%) and pain (20%). A strong correlation (r = 0.71) was observed between EQ-5D-3L anxiety and QLU-C10D emotional function dimensions. Good agreement (3.7% observations outside the limits of agreement) was observed between the utility scores.

Conclusion: The QLU-C10D is comparable to the more widely applied generic EQ-5D-3L, however, QLU-C10D was more sensitive to short-term utility changes following esophagectomy. Cognisant of requirements by policy makers to apply generic utility measures in cost effectiveness studies, the disease-specific QLU-C10D should be used alongside the generic measures like EQ-5D-3L.

Trial registration: The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12611000178943) on the 15th of February 2011.

Keywords: Ceiling effects; Convergent validity; EQ-5D-3L; Esophagectomy; Health related quality of life; QLU-C10D; Responsiveness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig 1:
Fig 1:
EQ-5D-3L ceiling effect at baseline and follow-up
Fig 2:
Fig 2:
QLU-C10D ceiling effects at baseline and follow-up
Fig 3:
Fig 3:
Bland–Altman plot of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L at follow-up
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Huang J, Koulaouzidis A, Marlicz W, Lok V, Chu C, Ngai CH, Zhang L, Chen P, Wang S, Yuan J, Lao X-Q, Tse SLA, Xu W, Zheng Z-J, Xie S-H, Wong MCS. Global burden, risk factors, and trends of esophageal cancer: an analysis of cancer registries from 48 countries. Cancers. 2021;13(1):141. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arnold M, Soerjomataram I, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histological subtype in 2012. Gut. 2015;64(3):381–387. - PubMed
    1. Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(34):5598–5606. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim TJ, Lee KH, Kim YH, Sung SW, Jheon S, Cho SK, Lee KW. Postoperative imaging of esophageal cancer: what chest radiologists need to know. Radiographics. 2007;27(2):409–429. - PubMed
    1. Short MN, Aloia TA, Ho V. The influence of complications on the costs of complex cancer surgery. Cancer. 2014;120(7):1035–1041. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources