Katharine S Gries1, Dean A Regier2, Scott D Ramsey3, Donald L Patrick4. 1. Evidera, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: Katharine.gries@evidera.com. 2. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, BC Cancer Agency Research Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 3. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To collect disease-specific and generic preference values for three populations. METHODS: Prostate cancer-specific health states were developed with attributes that varied across five health domains: sexual function, urinary function, bowel function, pain, and fear of the future. Men with prostate cancer, men at risk for prostate cancer, and a sample of the general population assigned value to 18 disease-specific health states using standard gamble (SG) methodology. Study participants also completed the Health Utilities Index (HUI) to obtain generic, community-based preference values to capture their current health rating. RESULTS: A total of 136 participants were enrolled (n = 43 prostate cancer; n = 40 at risk for prostate cancer; n = 49 general population). Mean HUI mark 3 current health ratings: men with prostate cancer 0.75 ± 0.260; men at risk for prostate cancer 0.77 ± 0.238; general population 0.84 ± 0.178. Mean SG preference values ranged from 0.46 to 0.85 among men with prostate cancer, 0.37 to 0.75 among men at risk for prostate cancer, and 0.32 to 0.81 among the general population group. CONCLUSIONS: In general, preference values for disease-specific health states using the patient perspective were higher than those for the general population. Generic preference values calculated from the HUI were higher than disease-specific preference values calculated from the SG. The higher values calculated from the HUI, from all three perspectives, indicate that a generic measure may not be sensitive enough to capture the disutility of prostate cancer symptoms, specifically sexual dysfunction, urinary dysfunction, and bowel dysfunction, which are being directly measured in the disease-specific health states.
OBJECTIVE: To collect disease-specific and generic preference values for three populations. METHODS:Prostate cancer-specific health states were developed with attributes that varied across five health domains: sexual function, urinary function, bowel function, pain, and fear of the future. Men with prostate cancer, men at risk for prostate cancer, and a sample of the general population assigned value to 18 disease-specific health states using standard gamble (SG) methodology. Study participants also completed the Health Utilities Index (HUI) to obtain generic, community-based preference values to capture their current health rating. RESULTS: A total of 136 participants were enrolled (n = 43 prostate cancer; n = 40 at risk for prostate cancer; n = 49 general population). Mean HUI mark 3 current health ratings: men with prostate cancer 0.75 ± 0.260; men at risk for prostate cancer 0.77 ± 0.238; general population 0.84 ± 0.178. Mean SG preference values ranged from 0.46 to 0.85 among men with prostate cancer, 0.37 to 0.75 among men at risk for prostate cancer, and 0.32 to 0.81 among the general population group. CONCLUSIONS: In general, preference values for disease-specific health states using the patient perspective were higher than those for the general population. Generic preference values calculated from the HUI were higher than disease-specific preference values calculated from the SG. The higher values calculated from the HUI, from all three perspectives, indicate that a generic measure may not be sensitive enough to capture the disutility of prostate cancer symptoms, specifically sexual dysfunction, urinary dysfunction, and bowel dysfunction, which are being directly measured in the disease-specific health states.
Authors: M Moskovitz; K Jao; J Su; M C Brown; H Naik; L Eng; T Wang; J Kuo; Y Leung; W Xu; N Mittmann; L Moody; L Barbera; G Devins; M Li; D Howell; G Liu Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677