Quality of Life Research

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 711–720 | Cite as

Association between utility and treatment among patients with prostate cancer

  • Ravishankar Jayadevappa
  • J Sanford Schwartz
  • Sumedha Chhatre
  • Alan J. Wein
  • S. Bruce Malkowicz



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


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.


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.


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.


Prostate cancer Utility Quality of wellbeing Health-related quality of life Radical prostatectomy External beam radiation therapy 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oakes, M. (1990). Statistical inference. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiological Resources.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Engels, J. M., & Diehr, P. (2003). Imputation of missing longitudinal data: A comparison of methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 968–976.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    Krahn, M., Ritvo, P., Irvine, J., et al. (2003). Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer. Medical Care, 41, 153–164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ravishankar Jayadevappa
    • 1
  • J Sanford Schwartz
    • 2
  • Sumedha Chhatre
    • 3
  • Alan J. Wein
    • 4
  • S. Bruce Malkowicz
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations