Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients
- 276 Downloads
Preferences (utilities) for health outcomes have an important role in decisions about prostate cancer screening and treatment. The responsiveness of utility instruments has not been evaluated.
Prostate cancer outpatients from the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto (n = 248) were allocated into three cohorts: N — newly diagnosed and treated; M — metastatic disease; O — all others.
We measured quality of life at 3 points within 12 months using 3 disease-specific utility instruments (Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scales), 3 generic utility instruments (Health Utilities Index, EQ-5D, Quality of Well-Being Scale), and 3 profile scales (PORPUS-P profile, Prostate Cancer Index, QLQ-C-30). Responsiveness was assessed using measures of internal responsiveness (standardized effect size, standardized response mean) and external responsiveness (receiver operator curve analysis, mixed model regression).
Cohort N patients showed post-treatment declines followed by improvement in global health and functional status. Disease specific instruments detected moderate (0.4–1.3) decrements followed by small increments (0.1–0.4) in standardized effect size and standardized response mean. Most instruments detected change using external responsiveness measures (all cohorts).
Disease-specific utility instruments appeared to be more responsive than generic instruments. Use of generic instruments should be supplemented with a responsive disease-specific instrument, particularly for applications in early prostate cancer.
KeywordsMeasurement Psychometrics Urologic diseases Utility measurement
area under the receiver operator curve
EuroQol 5 dimension quality of life instrument
health related quality of life
Health Utilities Index
Prostate Cancer Index
Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scales
health index version of PORPUS
health profile version of PORPUS
direct utility elicitation version of the PORPUS, using rating scale scaling
direct utility elicitation version of the PORPUS, using standard gamble scaling
European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire, core module
Quality of Well Being Scale
standardized effect size
standardized response mean
Support was provided by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), (Grant #006169), Zeneca Canada Inc., an Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (Dr.␣Krahn), the F. Norman Hughes Chair in Pharmacoeconomics (Dr. Krahn) and the Mary Trimmer Chair in Geriatric Medicine Research (Dr. Naglie).
- 7.Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. (1996) Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (Eds) Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Oxford University Press New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 12.Euroqol-Group. EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16:199Google Scholar
- 14.Furlong WH, Torrance GW, Feeny D, Boyle MH. McMaster (1994) Health Utilities Index of health-related quality of life Qual Life Res 3:76Google Scholar
- 16.Feeny D, Torrance G, Furlong W. Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincourt-Raven, Publishers, 1996: 239–52Google Scholar
- 25.Tomlinson GA, Bremner KE, Naglie G, Ritvo P, Irvine J, Krahn M (2002) Development and validation of a multi-attribute utility function for a multiattribute health state classification system for prostate cancer Med Decis Making 22(6):560Google Scholar
- 41.Litwin MS, Flanders SC, Pasta DJ, Stoddard ML, Lubeck DP, Henning JM (1999) Sexual function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: Multivariate quality-of-life analysis from CaPSURE. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor Urology 54(3):503–08CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.SPSS for Windows. 11.5.0 ed. Chicago: SPSS Inc.; (2002)Google Scholar
- 47.S+. S+ 6.2 for Windows. Insightful Corporation; (2004)Google Scholar