Literature DB >> 8487449

A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team.

C Fleming1, J H Wasson, P C Albertsen, M J Barry, J E Wennberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To model the impact of initial therapy on outcomes for men with localized (clinical stage A or B) prostatic carcinoma.
DESIGN: A decision analysis modeling three strategies: radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, and watchful waiting, with delayed hormonal therapy if metastatic disease develops. We modeled the main benefit of treatment as a reduction in the chance of death or disutility from metastatic disease. These benefits were offset in the model by the risks of treatment-related morbidity and mortality. The model was used to analyze expected outcomes by tumor grade (well, moderately, and poorly differentiated) for men 60 to 75 years of age. DATA: Probabilities and rates for important clinical events, obtained through review of the literature for prostatic carcinoma and analysis of Medicare claims data. MAIN
RESULTS: Several patterns emerged within the range of uncertainty about the risks and benefits of treatment for prostatic carcinoma. In patients with well-differentiated tumor grades, based on clinical staging, treatment at best offers limited benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy and may result in harm to the patient. Among patients with moderately or poorly differentiated tumors, if we use the most optimistic assumptions about treatment efficacy, then patients aged 60 to 65 years would benefit from either radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy, compared with watchful waiting. However, in most other cases, treatment offers less than a 1-year improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy or decreases the quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with watchful waiting. Invasive treatment generally appears to be harmful for patients older than 70 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy may benefit selected groups of patients with localized prostate cancer, particularly younger patients with higher-grade tumors. However, our model shows that in most cases the potential benefits of therapy are small enough that the choice of therapy is sensitive to the patient's preferences for various outcomes and discounting. The choice of watchful waiting is a reasonable alternative to invasive treatment for many men with localized prostatic carcinoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8487449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  65 in total

1.  Cost-utility analysis: use QALYs only with great caution.

Authors:  Maurice McGregor
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  The significance of quality of life in health care.

Authors:  Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Must we choose between quality and cost containment?

Authors:  C E Carpenter; A D Bender; D B Nash; J M Cornman
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1996-12

Review 4.  Contemporary outcomes of focal therapy in prostate cancer: what do we know so far...

Authors:  John F Ward
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Patient Decision Making Prior to Radical Prostatectomy: What Is and Is Not Involved.

Authors:  Çağatay Doğan; Hamza M Gültekin; Sarper M Erdoğan; Hamdi Özkara; Zübeyr Talat; Ahmet N Erözenci; Can Öbek
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2016-09-21

6.  QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers?

Authors:  Maurice McGregor; J Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Clinical Evidence: Non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  T J Wilt; M K Brawer
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1999-08

8.  Autonomy: What's Shared Decision Making Have to Do With It?

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; Karen A Scherr; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 11.229

9.  Prostate cancer screening (United States).

Authors:  J W Waterbor; A J Bueschen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 10.  Prostate cancer and health-related quality of life: a review of the literature.

Authors:  David T Eton; Stephen J Lepore
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.