nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.06.2010

Association between utility and treatment among patients with prostate cancer

verfasst von: Ravishankar Jayadevappa, J Sanford Schwartz, Sumedha Chhatre, Alan J. Wein, S. Bruce Malkowicz

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 5/2010

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis

Nächster Artikel Measurement of quality of life using EQ-5D in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation: comparison of patients, family caregivers, and nurses

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

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

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.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

16.

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

19.

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

20.

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

22.

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

23.

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

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.

30.

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

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Association between utility and treatment among patients with prostate cancer
verfasst von: Ravishankar Jayadevappa
J Sanford Schwartz
Sumedha Chhatre
Alan J. Wein
S. Bruce Malkowicz
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2010
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 5/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9622-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2010

Putting the text back into context: toward increased use of mixed methods for quality of life research

Accomplishment level and satisfaction with social participation of older adults: association with quality of life and best correlates

The experience of using the SEIQoL-DW with patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): issues of process and outcome

Effectiveness of a Tai chi Qigong program in promoting health-related quality of life and perceived social support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease clients

The SF-36 component summary scales and the daytime diurnal cortisol profile

Health-related quality of life after fast-track treatment results from a randomized controlled clinical equivalence trial

Premium Partner