A review of measurement of patient preferences for treatment outcomes after prostate cancer - Discussion

被引:22
作者
Kantoff, PW
Lubeck, DP
Lee, WR
Carroll, PR
机构
[1] Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco/Mt. Zion Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
[2] Urology Outcomes Research Group, University of California San Francisco/Mt. Zion Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
[3] Program in Urologic Oncology University of California, San Francisco/Mt. Zion Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
[4] Urology Outcomes Research Group, University of California San Francisco, Suite 282, San Francisco, CA 94019
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01577-7
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The diagnosis of early-stage prostate cancer cases creates dilemmas for many men diagnosed with the disease each year. Treatment interventions are all associated with significant treatment morbidity, including impotence and incontinence. The basic concept behind patient preferences, or utilities, is to ask patients to make judgments about the value of particular health outcomes. Several preference-based instruments are available, including the visual analog rating scale, the time trade-off utility assessment, and the standard gamble. These assessments result in scores or weights assigned to different health states. From the perspective of the patient with prostate cancer, the treatment that produces optimal outcomes will depend on the relative importance of several domains, which may include pain, urinary functioning, sexual functioning, and general physical health. Patients with similar diagnoses and overlapping clinical characteristics may have markedly different preferences for treatment outcomes. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:77 / 78
页数:2
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer [J].
Albertsen, PC ;
Nease, RF ;
Potosky, AL .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1998, 159 (01) :158-163
[2]  
[Anonymous], MED CARE
[3]   Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time trade-off [J].
Badia, X ;
Monserrat, S ;
Roset, M ;
Herdman, M .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1999, 8 (04) :303-310
[4]   Patient preferences versus physician perceptions of treatment decisions in cancer care [J].
Bruera, E ;
Sweeney, C ;
Calder, K ;
Palmer, L ;
Benisch-Tolley, S .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2001, 19 (11) :2883-2885
[5]  
Cassileth B R, 1992, Qual Life Res, V1, P323, DOI 10.1007/BF00434946
[6]   Prostate cancer patients' utilities for health states: How it looks depends on where you stand [J].
Chapman, GB ;
Elstein, AS ;
Kuzel, TM ;
Sharifi, R ;
Nadler, RB ;
Andrews, A ;
Bennett, CL .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (03) :278-286
[7]  
Crawford ED, 1997, UROLOGY, V50, P366
[8]  
FLOOD AB, 1996, J GEN INTERN MED, V11, P377
[9]   PATIENT-REPORTED COMPLICATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP TREATMENT AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY - THE NATIONAL MEDICARE EXPERIENCE - 1988-1990 (UPDATED JUNE 1993) [J].
FOWLER, FJ ;
BARRY, MJ ;
LUYAO, G ;
ROMAN, A ;
WASSON, J ;
WENNBERG, JE .
UROLOGY, 1993, 42 (06) :622-629
[10]   METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING HEALTH-STATE PREFERENCES .1. MEASUREMENT STRATEGIES [J].
FROBERG, DG ;
KANE, RL .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1989, 42 (04) :345-354