PURPOSE: When faced with treatment choices for early stage prostate cancer, patients must balance the survival benefit of a treatment with its morbidity. Little is known about how patients balance these trade-offs. To further our understanding of patient decision making we assessed patient utilities for prostate cancer treatment related morbidities. We determined whether patient utilities were predicted by sociodemographic characteristics or baseline genitourinary function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 401 men undergoing prostate needle biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer at university, Veterans Affairs and public hospitals. Study design included a prospective cross-sectional cohort with correlation and multivariate analysis. Subjects were studied with 2 established health related quality of life instruments. Patient utilities were assessed with an interactive software application. RESULTS: On multivariate analysis utility for current general health was a significant predictor of utilities for treatment related morbidities. Surprisingly baseline urinary, sexual and bowel function scores did not correlate well with respective utilities for potential incontinence, impotence or radiation proctitis. In other words, men with good and imperfect baseline function were equally willing to risk impairment to preserve life. CONCLUSIONS: Men who perceived that general health was better appear to place higher value on quantity of life, while those who already are suffering from poor general health place higher value on quality of life. Ethnicity appears to modify some effects of other variables on patient preference. Utility assessment provides a quantitative tool to aid physicians in counseling patients when making treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: When faced with treatment choices for early stage prostate cancer, patients must balance the survival benefit of a treatment with its morbidity. Little is known about how patients balance these trade-offs. To further our understanding of patient decision making we assessed patient utilities for prostate cancer treatment related morbidities. We determined whether patient utilities were predicted by sociodemographic characteristics or baseline genitourinary function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 401 men undergoing prostate needle biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer at university, Veterans Affairs and public hospitals. Study design included a prospective cross-sectional cohort with correlation and multivariate analysis. Subjects were studied with 2 established health related quality of life instruments. Patient utilities were assessed with an interactive software application. RESULTS: On multivariate analysis utility for current general health was a significant predictor of utilities for treatment related morbidities. Surprisingly baseline urinary, sexual and bowel function scores did not correlate well with respective utilities for potential incontinence, impotence or radiation proctitis. In other words, men with good and imperfect baseline function were equally willing to risk impairment to preserve life. CONCLUSIONS:Men who perceived that general health was better appear to place higher value on quantity of life, while those who already are suffering from poor general health place higher value on quality of life. Ethnicity appears to modify some effects of other variables on patient preference. Utility assessment provides a quantitative tool to aid physicians in counseling patients when making treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer.
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Jay Jhaveri; Maxine Sun; Khurshid R Ghani; Jan Schmitges; Wooju Jeong; James O Peabody; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Mani Menon Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2012-04
Authors: Ravishankar Jayadevappa; J Sanford Schwartz; Sumedha Chhatre; Alan J Wein; S Bruce Malkowicz Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Murray D Krahn; Karen E Bremner; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Andy Ni; George Tomlinson; Audrey Laporte; Gary Naglie Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kerry L Kilbridge; Gertrude Fraser; Murray Krahn; Elizabeth M Nelson; Mark Conaway; Randall Bashore; Andrew Wolf; Michael J Barry; Debra A Gong; Robert F Nease; Alfred F Connors Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M T King; R Viney; D P Smith; I Hossain; D Street; E Savage; S Fowler; M P Berry; M Stockler; P Cozzi; P Stricker; J Ward; B K Armstrong Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Salimah H Meghani; Christopher S Lee; Alexandra L Hanlon; Deborah W Bruner Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Marja C Stuifbergen; Willem-Jan Meerding; Caspar W N Looman; Gouke J Bonsel Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jonathan R G Etnel; Willem A Helbing; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Regina The; Ad J J C Bogers; Johanna J M Takkenberg Journal: Open Heart Date: 2018-11-10