The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study

doi:10.1007/s10198-023-01632-4

. 2024 Jul;25(5):889-901.

doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01632-4. Epub 2023 Sep 28.

The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study

Richard Huan Xu^{1

2}, Eliza Lai-Yi Wong³, Nan Luo⁴, Richard Norman⁵, Jens Lehmann⁶, Bernhard Holzner⁶, Madeleine T King⁷, Georg Kemmler⁸; EORTC QLG

Affiliations

¹ Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong SAR, China. richard.xu@polyu.edu.hk.
² JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong SAR, China. richard.xu@polyu.edu.hk.
³ JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong SAR, China.
⁴ Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, The National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
⁵ School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
⁶ Division of Psychiatry II, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
⁷ School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁸ Division of Psychiatry I, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

PMID: 37768519
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01632-4

The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study

Richard Huan Xu et al. Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Jul.

. 2024 Jul;25(5):889-901.

doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01632-4. Epub 2023 Sep 28.

Authors

Richard Huan Xu^{1

2}, Eliza Lai-Yi Wong³, Nan Luo⁴, Richard Norman⁵, Jens Lehmann⁶, Bernhard Holzner⁶, Madeleine T King⁷, Georg Kemmler⁸; EORTC QLG

Affiliations

¹ Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong SAR, China. richard.xu@polyu.edu.hk.
² JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong SAR, China. richard.xu@polyu.edu.hk.
³ JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, Hong Kong SAR, China.
⁴ Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, The National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
⁵ School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
⁶ Division of Psychiatry II, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
⁷ School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
⁸ Division of Psychiatry I, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

PMID: 37768519
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01632-4

Abstract

Objective: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new preference-based measure derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Country-specific value sets are required to support the cost-utility analysis of cancer-related interventions. This study aimed to generate an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for Hong Kong (HK).

Methods: A HK online panel was quota-sampled to achieve an adult general population sample representative by sex and age. Participants were invited to complete an online discrete choice experiment survey. Each participant was asked to complete 16 choice-pairs, randomly assigned from a total of 960 choice-pairs, each comprising two QLU-C10D health states and a duration attribute. Conditional and mixed logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the data.

Results: The analysis included data from 1041 respondents who had successfully completed the online survey. The distribution of sex did not differ from that of the general population, but a significant difference was found among age groups. A weighting analysis for non-representative variable (age) was used. Utility decrements were generally monotonic, with the largest decrements for physical functioning (- 0.308), role functioning (- 0.165), and pain (- 0.161). The mean QLU-C10D utility score of the participants was 0.804 (median = 0.838, worst to best = - 0.169 to 1). The value of the worst health state was - 0.223, which was sufficiently lower than 0 (being dead).

Conclusions: This study established HK utility weights for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses across cancer-related health programmes and technologies.

Keywords: Decision making; Discrete choice experiment; EORTC QLQ-C30; Hong Kong; QLU-C10D; Quality of life; Utility weights.

PubMed Disclaimer

Cited by

Estimating a preference-based index for patients with myasthenia gravis from the MGQoL-6D measure.
Xu RH, Norman R, Liu J, Dong D. Xu RH, et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2025 Apr 20;23(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12955-025-02370-2. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2025. PMID: 40254587 Free PMC article.
Validation of the Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Measure EORTC QLU-C10D against the Generic Instruments EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in a Prospectively Collected Sample of Patients with Cancer in Austria and France.
Pilz MJ, Seyringer S, Nerich V, King MT, Norman R, Gamper EM; EORTC Quality of Life Group. Pilz MJ, et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Aug;43(8):937-953. doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01501-3. Epub 2025 Apr 27. Pharmacoeconomics. 2025. PMID: 40287928 Free PMC article.
Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 to the SF-6D utility index in patients with lung cancer using machine learning and traditional regression methods.
Jiang L, Li K, Lu S, Hong Z, Wang Y, Xie Q, He Q, Wei S, Zhou A, Kang H, Leng X, Yang Q, Miao Y. Jiang L, et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2025 Jul 1;23(1):66. doi: 10.1186/s12955-025-02394-8. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2025. PMID: 40597342 Free PMC article.
Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5 L, SF-6Dv2, QLU-C10D and FACT-8D among survivors of classical Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Xu RH, Zhao Z, Pan T, Monteiro A, Gu H, Dong D. Xu RH, et al. Eur J Health Econ. 2025 Jun;26(4):671-682. doi: 10.1007/s10198-024-01730-x. Epub 2024 Oct 17. Eur J Health Econ. 2025. PMID: 39419912 Free PMC article.
A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances.
Cao Y, Li H, Cheng LJ, King MT, Kemmler G, Cella D, Yu H, Huang W, Luo N. Cao Y, et al. Health Econ Rev. 2024 Oct 1;14(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s13561-024-00560-0. Health Econ Rev. 2024. PMID: 39352657 Free PMC article.

References

1. Brazier, J.E., Rowen, D., Lloyd, A., et al.: Future directions in valuing benefits for estimating QALYs: is time up for the EQ-5D? Value Health 22, 62–68 (2019) - DOI - PubMed
1. Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., et al.: UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ. 28, 1385–1401 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950 - DOI - PubMed
1. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20, 1727–1736 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x - DOI - PubMed - PMC
1. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8 - DOI - PubMed
1. Versteegh, M.M., Leunis, A., Uyl-de Groot, C.A., et al.: Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health 15, 504–513 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.003 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

001/2018/the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Springer
Medical
- MedlinePlus Health Information

[1] Brazier, J.E., Rowen, D., Lloyd, A., et al.: Future directions in valuing benefits for estimating QALYs: is time up for the EQ-5D? Value Health 22, 62–68 (2019) - DOI - PubMed

[2] Brazier, J.E., Rowen, D., Lloyd, A., et al.: Future directions in valuing benefits for estimating QALYs: is time up for the EQ-5D? Value Health 22, 62–68 (2019) - DOI - PubMed

[3] Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., et al.: UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ. 28, 1385–1401 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950 - DOI - PubMed

[4] Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., et al.: UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ. 28, 1385–1401 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950 - DOI - PubMed

[5] Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20, 1727–1736 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x - DOI - PubMed - PMC

[6] Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20, 1727–1736 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x - DOI - PubMed - PMC

[7] Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8 - DOI - PubMed

[8] Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8 - DOI - PubMed

[9] Versteegh, M.M., Leunis, A., Uyl-de Groot, C.A., et al.: Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health 15, 504–513 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.003 - DOI - PubMed

[10] Versteegh, M.M., Leunis, A., Uyl-de Groot, C.A., et al.: Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health 15, 504–513 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.003 - DOI - PubMed

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study

Affiliations

The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Similar articles

Cited by

References

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Medical