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
[21]   A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer [J].
Kattan, MW ;
Cowen, ME ;
Miles, BJ .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 12 (05) :299-305
[22]   SCREENING FOR PROSTATE-CANCER - A DECISION-ANALYTIC VIEW [J].
KRAHN, MD ;
MAHONEY, JE ;
ECKMAN, MH ;
TRACHTENBERG, J ;
PAUKER, SG ;
DETSKY, AS .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (10) :773-780
[23]   FALLACY OF 5-YEAR SURVIVAL IN LUNG-CANCER [J].
MCNEIL, BJ ;
WEICHSELBAUM, R ;
PAUKER, SG .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1978, 299 (25) :1397-1401
[24]  
MOLD JW, 1992, J FAM PRACTICE, V34, P561
[25]   THE MEANING OF LIFE EXPECTANCY - WHAT IS A CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT GAIN [J].
NAIMARK, D ;
NAGLIE, G ;
DETSKY, AS .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1994, 9 (12) :702-707
[26]  
Pauker S P, 1987, Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser, V23, P151
[27]   USERS GUIDES TO THE MEDICAL LITERATURE .7. HOW TO USE A CLINICAL DECISION-ANALYSIS .A. ARE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY VALID [J].
RICHARDSON, WS ;
DETSKY, AS .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 273 (16) :1292-1295
[28]   The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine [J].
Russell, LB ;
Gold, MR ;
Siegel, JE ;
Daniels, N ;
Weinstein, MC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (14) :1172-1177
[29]   THE UTILITY OF THE TIME TRADE-OFF METHOD IN CANCER-PATIENTS - FEASIBILITY AND PROPORTIONAL TRADE-OFF [J].
STIGGELBOUT, AM ;
KIEBERT, GM ;
KIEVIT, J ;
LEER, JWH ;
HABBEMA, JDF ;
DEHAES, JCJM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1995, 48 (10) :1207-1214
[30]  
Torrance G W, 1972, Health Serv Res, V7, P118