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
[31]   EXPECTED GAINS IN LIFE EXPECTANCY FROM VARIOUS CORONARY HEART-DISEASE RISK FACTOR MODIFICATIONS [J].
TSEVAT, J ;
WEINSTEIN, MC ;
WILLIAMS, LW ;
TOSTESON, ANA ;
GOLDMAN, L .
CIRCULATION, 1991, 83 (04) :1194-1201
[32]  
US Census Bureau, 1994, STAT ABSTR US
[33]  
WEINSTEIN MC, 1980, CLIN DECISION ANAL, P202
[34]   The strengths and limitations of expected utility theory [J].
Wu, G .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1996, 16 (01) :9-10