Literature DB >> 12544552

Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy.

Murray Krahn1, Paul Ritvo, Jane Irvine, George Tomlinson, Karen E Bremner, Andrea Bezjak, John Trachtenberg, Gary Naglie.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preferences, or utilities, for health outcomes are central in prostate cancer decision-making. Utilities can be elicited directly from patients using standard techniques, or indirectly, using questionnaires that incorporate preference weights from community members.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate directly elicited and indirectly elicited (questionnaire-derived, community-weighted) utilities for prostate cancer outcomes and the effects of sexual, urinary, and bowel dysfunction on them.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilities for the current health of 141 prostate cancer patients, recruited from ambulatory clinics, were elicited directly with the Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale, rating scale (PORPUS-U(RS)) and standard gamble (PORPUS-U(SG)) subscales. Patients completed the Health Utilities Index (HUI) and Quality of Well Being Scale (QWB), utility instruments incorporating community preferences, and the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index.
RESULTS: Patients' treatments included radical prostatectomy (18%), radiation (60%), and hormonal (42%). Mean utility scores for current health were 0.65 (QWB), 0.79 (PORPUS-U(RS)), 0.80 (HUI), 0.86 (PORPUS-U(SG)). Utility decrements for dysfunction were small (0.08-0.14 [sexual], 0.06 to 0.13 [urinary], and 0.01 to 0.13 [bowel]), and even smaller when adjusted for concomitant changes in other quality of life (QOL) domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients' directly elicited utilities for their own health were higher than community-derived utilities obtained from HUI and QWB administration to the same patients. HUI scores of these patients were similar to those of age-matched Canadian men. Sexual, urinary, and bowel problems were common but had less impact on overall QOL than reported in previous utility studies. These results weaken the argument that prostate cancer screening and treatment should be limited because of severe and debilitative side effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12544552     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200301000-00017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  33 in total

1.  Simulation optimization of PSA-threshold based prostate cancer screening policies.

Authors:  Daniel J Underwood; Jingyu Zhang; Brian T Denton; Nilay D Shah; Brant A Inman
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2012-12

2.  Value based medicine.

Authors:  S M Kymes; K D Frick
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Individualized strategy for dosing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists for androgen-independent prostate cancer: identification of outcomes and costs.

Authors:  Jennifer A Wagmiller; Jennifer J Griggs; Andrew W Dick; Deepak M Sahasrabudhe
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Karen E Bremner; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Discrete choice experiment of smoking cessation behaviour in Japan.

Authors:  Rei Goto; Shuzo Nishimura; Takanori Ida
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 7.  Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  William J Catalona
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 5.456

8.  Projecting the clinical benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation and selective salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a decision analysis.

Authors:  S P Elliott; T J Wilt; K M Kuntz
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 5.554

9.  Prostate cancer screening: going beyond the clinical evidence.

Authors:  Murray Krahn
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Changes in health utilities and health-related quality of life over 12 months following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jennifer Ku; Murray Krahn; John Trachtenberg; Michael Nesbitt; Robin Kalnin; Gina Lockwood; Shabbir M H Alibhai
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.