Preferences for Prostate Cancer Outcomes: A Comparison of the Patient Perspective, the General Population Perspective, and a Population at Risk for Prostate Cancer

被引:7
|
作者
Gries, Katharine S. [1 ]
Regier, Dean A. [2 ,3 ]
Ramsey, Scott D. [4 ]
Patrick, Donald L. [5 ]
机构
[1] Evidera, Seattle, WA USA
[2] BC Canc Agcy Res Ctr, Canadian Ctr Appl Res Canc Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Sch Populat & Publ Hlth, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[4] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, 1124 Columbia St, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
[5] Univ Washington, Dept Hlth Serv, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
关键词
outcomes; perspective; preference values; prostate cancer; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HEALTH STATES; UTILITY; VALUES; MULTIATTRIBUTE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SYSTEM; ILL;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.012
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objective: To collect disease-specific and generic preference values for three populations. Methods: Prostate cancer-specific health states were developed with attributes that varied across five health domains: sexual function, urinary function, bowel function, pain, and fear of the future. Men with prostate cancer, men at risk for prostate cancer, and a sample of the general population assigned value to 18 disease specific health states using standard gamble (SG) methodology. Study participants also completed the Health Utilities Index (HUI) to obtain generic, community-based preference values to capture their current health rating. Results: A total of 136 participants were enrolled (n = 43 prostate cancer; n = 40 at risk for prostate cancer; n = 49 general population). Mean HUI mark 3 current health ratings: men with prostate cancer 0.75 +/- 0.260; men at risk for prostate cancer 0.77 +/- 0.238; general population 0.84 +/- 0.178. Mean SG preference values ranged from 0.46 to 0.85 among men with prostate cancer, 0.37 to 0.75 among men at risk for prostate cancer, and 0.32 to 0.81 among the general population group. Conclusions: In general, preference values for disease-specific health states using the patient perspective were higher than those for the general population. Generic preference values calculated from the HUI were higher than disease-specific preference values calculated from the SG. The higher values calculated from the HUI, from all three perspectives, indicate that a generic measure may not be sensitive enough to capture the disutility of prostate cancer symptoms, specifically sexual dysfunction, urinary dysfunction, and bowel dysfunction, which are being directly measured in the disease specific health states.
引用
收藏
页码:218 / 225
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Racial disparities in prostate cancer: a molecular perspective
    Bhardwaj, Arun
    Srivastava, Sanjeev K.
    Khan, Mohammad Aslam
    Prajapati, Vijay K.
    Singh, Seema
    Carter, James E.
    Singh, Ajay P.
    FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE-LANDMARK, 2017, 22 : 772 - 782
  • [42] INITIAL TREATMENT COSTS OF ORGAN-CONFINED PROSTATE CANCER: A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE
    Kommu, Sashi S.
    Eden, Christopher G.
    Luscombe, Christopher J.
    Golash, Anurag
    Persad, Rajendra A.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 107 (01) : 1 - 3
  • [43] Population-Based Comparison of Different Risk Stratification Systems Among Prostate Cancer Patients
    Xie, Mu
    Gao, Xian-Shu
    Ma, Ming-Wei
    Gu, Xiao-Bin
    Li, Hong-Zhen
    Lyu, Feng
    Bai, Yun
    Chen, Jia-Yan
    Ren, Xue-Ying
    Liu, Ming-Zhu
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11
  • [44] Association Between the Prostate-specific Antigen Gene and the Risk of Prostate Cancer in a Taiwanese Population
    Chen, Marcelo
    Huang, Yu-Chuen
    Yang, Stone
    Chen, Yi-Ming Arthur
    UROLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2011, 22 (01) : 28 - 31
  • [45] Evaluation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk calculator in a high-risk screening population
    Kaplan, David J.
    Boorjian, Stephen A.
    Ruth, Karen
    Egleston, Brian L.
    Chen, David Y. T.
    Viterbo, Rosalia
    Uzzo, Robert G.
    Buyyounouski, Mark K.
    Raysor, Susan
    Giri, Veda N.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 105 (03) : 334 - 337
  • [46] Risk of second cancer following radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based analysis
    Nina-Sophie Hegemann
    Anne Schlesinger-Raab
    Ute Ganswindt
    Claudia Hörl
    Stephanie E. Combs
    Dieter Hölzel
    Jürgen E. Gschwend
    Christian Stief
    Claus Belka
    Jutta Engel
    Radiation Oncology, 12
  • [47] Impact of Prostate Cancer on Sexual Relationships: A Longitudinal Perspective on Intimate Partners' Experiences
    Ramsey, Scott D.
    Zeliadt, Steven B.
    Blough, David K.
    Moinpour, Carol M.
    Hall, Ingrid J.
    Smith, Judith Lee
    Ekwueme, Donatus U.
    Fedorenko, Catherine R.
    Fairweather, Megan E.
    Koepl, Lisel M.
    Thompson, Ian M.
    Keane, Thomas E.
    Penson, David F.
    JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE, 2013, 10 (12) : 3135 - 3143
  • [48] Risk of prostate cancer and family history of cancer: a population-based study in China
    Y Bai
    Y-T Gao
    J Deng
    I A Sesterhenn
    J F Fraumeni
    A W Hsing
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2005, 8 : 60 - 65
  • [49] Changing presentation of prostate cancer in a UK population – 10 year trends in prostate cancer risk profiles in the East of England
    D C Greenberg
    K A Wright
    A Lophathanon
    K R Muir
    V J Gnanapragasam
    British Journal of Cancer, 2013, 109 : 2115 - 2120
  • [50] Making a case “for” focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials
    Alex Z. Wang
    Amir H. Lebastchi
    Luke P. O’Connor
    Michael Ahdoot
    Sherif Mehralivand
    Nitin Yerram
    Samir S. Taneja
    Arvin K. George
    Rafael Sanchez-Salas
    John F. Ward
    Pilar Laguna
    Jean de la Rosette
    Peter A. Pinto
    World Journal of Urology, 2021, 39 : 729 - 739