The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients

被引:53
作者
Cowen, ME
Miles, BJ
Cahill, DF
Giesler, RB
Beck, JR
Kattan, MW
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Scott Dept Urol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Baylor Coll Med, Informat Technol Program, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] St Joseph Mercy Hosp, Dept Med, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
[4] Univ Michigan, Sch Med, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[5] Indiana Univ, Sch Nursing, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[6] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
关键词
decision analysis; utility assessment; prostate cancer; patient preferences;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X9801800404
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
The optimal management strategy for men who have localized prostate cancer remains controversial. This study examines the extent to which suggested treatment based on the perspective of a group or society agrees with that derived from individual patients' preferences. A previously published decision analysis for localized prostate cancer was used to suggest the treatment that maximized quality-adjusted life expectancy. Two treatment recommendations were obtained for each patient: the first (group-level) was derived using the mean utilities of the cohort; the second (individual-level) used his own set of utilities. Group-level utilities misrepresented 25-48% of individuals' preferences depending on the grade of tumor modeled. The best kappa measure achieved between group and individual preferences was 0.11. The average quality-adjusted life years lost due to misrepresentation of preference was as high as 1.7 quality-adjusted life years. Use of aggregated utilities in a group-level decision analysis can ignore the substantial variability at the individual level. Caution is needed when applying a group-level recommendation to the treatment of localized prostate cancer in an individual patient.
引用
收藏
页码:376 / 380
页数:5
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   A 72-YEAR-OLD MAN WITH LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER - DISCUSSION [J].
ALBERTSEN, P ;
DALEY, J .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (01) :69-74
[2]   LONG-TERM SURVIVAL AMONG MEN WITH CONSERVATIVELY TREATED LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
ALBERTSEN, PC ;
FRYBACK, DG ;
STORER, BE ;
KOLON, TF ;
FINE, J .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (08) :626-631
[3]   PATIENTS PREFERENCES IN RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
ANGELL, M .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1984, 310 (21) :1385-1387
[5]   A CRITIQUE OF THE DECISION-ANALYSIS FOR CLINICALLY LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
BECK, JR ;
KATTAN, MW ;
MILES, BJ .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1994, 152 (05) :1894-1899
[6]  
CANTOR SB, 1995, J FAM PRACTICE, V41, P33
[7]   RESULTS OF CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT OF CLINICALLY LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER [J].
CHODAK, GW ;
THISTED, RA ;
GERBER, GS ;
JOHANSSON, JE ;
ADOLFSSON, J ;
JONES, GW ;
CHISHOLM, GD ;
MOSKOVITZ, B ;
LIVNE, PM ;
WARNER, J .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1994, 330 (04) :242-248
[8]   SCREENING FOR PROSTATE-CANCER - THE DEBATE CONTINUES [J].
CHODAK, GW .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (10) :813-814
[9]   Is expected utility theory normative for medical decision making? [J].
Cohen, BJ .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1996, 16 (01) :1-6
[10]   USING EXPLICIT DECISION RULES TO MANAGE ISSUES OF JUSTICE, RISK, AND ETHICS IN DECISION-ANALYSIS - WHEN IS IT NOT RATIONAL TO MAXIMIZE EXPECTED UTILITY [J].
DEBER, RB ;
GOEL, V .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1990, 10 (03) :181-194