Health state utilities measured by the generic multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) differ. Empirical evidence suggests that some MAUIs are more sensitive than others in reflecting the quality of life (QoL) of patients in particular disease areas. Additionally, in order to estimate utilities based on cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments (CSQoLs), a number of mapping functions have emerged. Although it is common practice to apply a CSQoL instead of a MAUI in clinical trials, CSQoL cannot be used to estimate utility values for economic evaluations. Mappings based on MAUIs that are not sensitive to changes in cancer patients’ QoL may result in misleading approximations of utilities that could affect allocation of resources. The study objective is to explore the validity and sensitivity of the major MAUIs to variation in the QoL measured by cancer-specific instruments. We aimed to investigate (i) the sensitivity of the general MAUIs scores to changes in the CSQoL, and (ii) whether particular dimensions of the general instrument are more sensitive.

A two stage systematic literature review is conducted. First, an update of the review done by McTaggart-Cowan et al. (2013) on the mapping methods used to determine utilities from cancer-specific instrument. Second, an analysis of studies that measure the relationship between CSQoLs and general MAUIs.

The literature suggests that differences exist between MAUIs in their capacity to capture the QoL dimensions of the CSQoLs. Additionally, the main challenge to build an appropriate mapping function for deriving utilities values from CSQoL is the definition of an appropriate methodology that (i) responds to the distribution of the selected sample and (ii) can successfully be validated in additional samples.

In the context of health technology assessment and cost effectiveness analysis, it is crucial to carefully select and report the CSQoL and MAUI involved in the estimation of the additional benefits. Policy makers need to be awarded of the sensitivity of the instruments to changes in QoL in relation to the CSQoL dimensions QoL.