Association between utility and treatment among patients with prostate cancer
- 150 Downloads
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.
KeywordsProstate cancer Utility Quality of wellbeing Health-related quality of life Radical prostatectomy External beam radiation therapy
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 22.Oakes, M. (1990). Statistical inference. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiological Resources.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.PubMedGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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