M L Essink-Bot1, I J Korfage, H J De Koning. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC/University Medical Centre Rotterdam, the Netherlands. m.essink-bot@erasmusmc.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To apply the general empirical framework for estimating utilities in cost-utility analysis (CUA) of population-based prostate cancer screening, including an assessment of empirical health status with a classifying measure (e.g. the EQ-5D) and linking these descriptions to utility estimates using the standard preference-based algorithm, combining them with the appropriate duration into quality-adjusted life years, and sensitivity analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Empirical studies to describe and value the health status effects of prostate cancer screening have been ongoing within the Rotterdam centre of the European Randomised Study on Screening for Prostate Cancer since 1995. The results of these studies, including the screening, the primary treatment phase and advanced disease, will be used in estimating utilities for cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: Estimation of cost-utility of population-based prostate cancer screening with the results of the three empirical health status studies yielded partly counterintuitive results, underestimating the unfavourable health status effects that are inevitably associated with prostate cancer screening. This may be caused by other than health effects of the screening itself ('process effects') and adaptive changes in perception of their situation in patients after curative primary treatment ('response shift'), among other elements. CONCLUSIONS: These results prompted us to reconsider the suitability of the general framework of CUA for screening programmes. Possible directions for solutions are indicated.
OBJECTIVE: To apply the general empirical framework for estimating utilities in cost-utility analysis (CUA) of population-based prostate cancer screening, including an assessment of empirical health status with a classifying measure (e.g. the EQ-5D) and linking these descriptions to utility estimates using the standard preference-based algorithm, combining them with the appropriate duration into quality-adjusted life years, and sensitivity analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Empirical studies to describe and value the health status effects of prostate cancer screening have been ongoing within the Rotterdam centre of the European Randomised Study on Screening for Prostate Cancer since 1995. The results of these studies, including the screening, the primary treatment phase and advanced disease, will be used in estimating utilities for cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: Estimation of cost-utility of population-based prostate cancer screening with the results of the three empirical health status studies yielded partly counterintuitive results, underestimating the unfavourable health status effects that are inevitably associated with prostate cancer screening. This may be caused by other than health effects of the screening itself ('process effects') and adaptive changes in perception of their situation in patients after curative primary treatment ('response shift'), among other elements. CONCLUSIONS: These results prompted us to reconsider the suitability of the general framework of CUA for screening programmes. Possible directions for solutions are indicated.
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; George Luta; Anthony B Miller; Timothy R Church; Scott P Kelly; Larry R Muenz; Kimberly M Davis; David L Dawson; Sara Edmond; Douglas Reding; Jerome E Mabie; Thomas L Riley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Murray Krahn; Karen E Bremner; George Tomlinson; Paul Ritvo; Jane Irvine; Gary Naglie Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-11-08 Impact factor: 4.147