Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Association between utility and treatment among patients with prostate cancer

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the association between utility, treatment, and generic and prostate-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

In this longitudinal cohort study, we recruited 201 (≥45 years) newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer from urology clinics of an urban academic hospital. Participants completed Quality of Wellbeing (QWB-SA), generic (SF-36), and prostate-specific (UCLA-PCI) HRQoL surveys prior to treatment and up to 24 months post-treatment. Clinical and demographic data were obtained via medical chart review, and utility scores were computed using QWB-SA. To analyze the relationship between treatment and utility, we used linear mixed effects models, after adjusting for covariates and propensity score. Similar models were used to examine the association between generic and prostate-specific HRQoL and utility.

Results

Mean baseline utility was comparable between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) groups (0.73 vs. 0.69, P = 0.1750). Mixed effects models indicated that RP was associated with higher utility at 24 month (OR = 1.12, P = 0.027), after controlling for covariates. RP was associated with improved functioning for role physical, role emotional, vitality, mental health and bodily pain, and impaired urinary function. Higher scores on generic health subscales were indicative of higher utility. Also, for prostate-specific HRQoL, higher scores on bowl function, sexual function, urinary bother, and bowel bother were associated with higher utility.

Conclusions

Treatment appears to have significant association with post-treatment utility. Thus, utility assessment provides an important quantitative tool to support patient and physician clinical treatment decision-making process in prostate cancer care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., et al. (2009). Cancer statistics, 2009. CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 59(4), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Litwin, M. S., & Saigal, C. S. (ed). (2007). Urologic diseases in American. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2007; NIH Publication No. 07-5512.

  3. Borre, M., Nerstrom, B., & Overgaard, J. (1997). The dilemma of prostate cancer—A growing human and economic burden irrespective of treatment strategies. Acta Oncologica, 36(7), 681–687.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McNaughton-Collins, M., Walker-Corkery, E., & Barry, M. J. (2004). Health-related quality of life, satisfaction and economic outcome measures in studies of prostate cancer screening and treatment, 1990–2000. Journal of National Cancer Institute, Monographs, 33, 78–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan, J. M., Jou, R. M., & Carroll, P. R. (2004). The relative impact and future burden of prostate cancer in the United States. The Journal of Urology, 172, S13–S17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Quek, M. L., & Penson, D. F. (2005). Quality of life in patients with localized prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 23, 208–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jayadevappa, R., Chhatre, S., Bloom, B. S., et al. (2006). Health related quality of life and satisfaction with care among older men treated with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. British Journal of urology International, 97, 955–962.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sanda, M. G., Dunn, R. L., Michalski, J., et al. (2008). Quality of life and satisfaction with care outcome among prostate cancer survivors. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 1250–1261.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations. Medical Care 38 (suppl II): II-14-II-25.

  10. Fleming, G., Wasson, J. H., Albertsen, P. C., et al. (1993). A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. Journal of American Medical Association, 269(20), 2650–2658.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. King, J. T., Tsevat, J., Lave, J. R., et al. (2005). Willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: Implications for societal health care resource allocation. Medical Decision Making, 25, 667–677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ware, J. E., Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., Ware, J. E., Jr, et al. (1988). The MOS short form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care, 26, 724–735.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Litwin, M. S., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., et al. (1998). The UCLA prostate cancer index: Development, reliability and validity of health-related quality of life measure. Medical Care, 36, 1002–1012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Andersen, E. M. (1998). Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the quality of well-being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Medical Care, 36(9), 1349–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P. (1998). A general health policy model: Update and applications. Health Services Research, 23(2), 203–235.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kaplan, R. M., Ganiats, T. G., Sieber, W. J., & Anderson, J. P. (1998). The quality of well-being scale: Critical similarities and differences with SF-36. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 10(6), 509–520.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., et al. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Disease, 40, 373–383.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D’Agostino, R. B., Jr. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oakes, M. (1990). Statistical inference. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiological Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Engels, J. M., & Diehr, P. (2003). Imputation of missing longitudinal data: A comparison of methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 968–976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazzaro, C., Bartoletti, R., Guazzoni, G., et al. (2007). QuABIOS Study Group. Economic evaluation of different hormonal therapies for prostate cancer. Final results from the Quality of Life Antiandrogen Blockade Italian Observational Study (QuABIOS). Archivio Italiano di Urologia, Andrologia, 79(3), 104–107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sommers, B. D., Beard, C. J., D’Amico, A. V., et al. (2008). Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choice for localized prostate cancer. Cancer, 113, 2058–2067.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhatnagar, V., Stewart, S. T., Bonney, W. W., et al. (2004). Treatment options for localized prostate cancer: Quality-adjusted life years and the effects of lead time. Urology, 63, 103–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stewart, S. T., Lenert, L., Bhatnagar, V., et al. (2005). Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Medical Care, 43, 347–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen, R. C., Clark, J. A., & Talcott, J. A. (2009). ) Individualizing quality-of-life outcomes reporting how localized prostate cancer treatments after patients with different levels of baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(24), 3916–3922.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fumitaka, S., Katsuki, F., Yoichi, M. I., et al. (2008). Factors associated with variation in utility scores among patients with prostate cancer. Value in Health, 7(11), 1190–1193.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Krahn, M., Ritvo, P., Irvine, J., et al. (2003). Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer. Medical Care, 41, 153–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Saigal, C. S., Gornbein, J., Reid, K., et al. (2002). Stability of time trade-off utilities for health states associated with the treatment of prostate cancer. Quality of Life Research, 11, 405–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bremner, K. E., Chong, A. K. Y. C., Tomlinson, G., et al. (2007). A review and meta analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Medical Decision Making, 27, 288–298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Saigal, C. S., Cornbein, J., Nease, R., et al. (2001). Predictors of utilities for health states in early stage prostate cancer. Journal of Urology, 166, 942–946.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Karin, S., Per, C., Gabriel, S., et al. (2004). The estimated economic value of the welfare loss due to prostate cancer pain in a defined population. Acta Oncologica, 43(3), 290–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Elkin, E. B., Cowen, M. E., Cahill, D., et al. (2004). Preference assessment method affects decision-analytic recommendations: A prostate cancer treatment example. Medical Decision Making, 24, 504–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Supported by the DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program W81XWH-04-1-0257.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 224, 3615 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-2676, USA

    Ravishankar Jayadevappa

  2. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-2676, USA

    J Sanford Schwartz

  3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sumedha Chhatre

  4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Alan J. Wein & S. Bruce Malkowicz

Authors
  1. Ravishankar Jayadevappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J Sanford Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sumedha Chhatre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan J. Wein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Bruce Malkowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravishankar Jayadevappa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jayadevappa, R., Schwartz, J.S., Chhatre, S. et al. Association between utility and treatment among patients with prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 19, 711–720 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9622-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9622-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation