Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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' pref erences 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. Key words: decision analysis; utility assessment; prostate cancer; patient pref erences. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:376-380)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fleming C. , Wasson JH , Albertsen PC , et al. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1993;269:2650-8.

Beck JR , Kattan MW , Miles BJ A critique of the decision analysis for clinically localized prostate cancer . J Urol. 1994; 152:1894-9.

Kattan MW , Cowen ME , Miles BJ A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer . J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:299-305.

Chodak GW Screening for prostate cancer. The debate continues. JAMA. 1994;272:813-4.

Albertsen P. A 72-year-old man with localized prostate cancer . JAMA. 1995;274:69-74.

Weinstein MC , Fineberg HV , Elstein AS , et al. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1980:202-3,217.

Kassirer JP Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1895-6.

Deber RB , Goel V. Using explicit decision rules to manage issues of justice, risk, and ethics in decision analysis: when is it not rational to maximize expected utility . Med Decis Making. 1990:10:181-94.

Pauker SP , Pauker SG The amniocentesis decision: ten years of decision analytic experience . Birth Defects: Original Article Series. 1987;23:151-69.

10.

Cantor SB , Spann SJ , Volk RF , Cardenas MP , Warren MM Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis. J Fam Pract. 1995;41:33-41.

11.

Krahn MD , Mahoney JE , Eckman MH , Tractenberg J. , Pauker SG , Detsky AS Screening for prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994; 272:773-80.

12.

Mold JW , Holtgrave DR , Bisonni RS , Marley DS , Wright RA , Spann SJ The evaluation and treatment of men with asymptomatic prostate nodules in primary care: a decision analysis. J Fam Pract. 1992;34:561-8.

13.

McNeil BJ , Weichselbaum R. , Pauker SG Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:1397-401.

14.

Doubilet P. , Begg CB , Weinstein MC , Braun P. , McNeil BJ Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:157-77.

15.

Chodak GW , Thisted RA , Gerber GS , et al. Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:242-8

16.

Gerber GS , Thisted RA , Scardino PT , et al. Results of radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer : multi-institutional analysis. JAMA. 1996;276:615-9.

17.

Albertsen PC , Fryback DG , Storer BE , Kolon TF , Fine J. Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995 ;274:626-31.

18.

Torrance GW , Thomas WH , Sackett DL A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118-33.

19.

Froberg DG , Kane RL Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: Scaling methods . J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459-71.

20.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1994. 114th ed. Table No. 116. Washington, DC, 1994.

21.

Tsevat J. , Weinstein MC , Williams LW , Tosteson Ana , Gold-man L. Expected gains in life expectancy from various coronary heart disease risk factor modifications. Circulation. 1991;83:1194-201.

22.

Naimark D. , Naglie G. , Detsky AS The meaning of life expectancy. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:702-7.

23.

Richardson WS , Detsky AS , for the Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. User's guides to the medical literature. VII. How to use a clinical decision analysis. JAMA. 1995;273: 1292-5

24.

Russell LB , Gold MR , Siegel JE , Daniels N. , Weinstein MC The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1172-7.

25.

Etzioni R. , Thompson IM Prostate cancer and computer models: background, limitations, and potential . Urol Oncol. 1996:2:57-64.

26.

Stiggelbout AM , Kiebert GM , Kievit J. , Leer JW , Habbema Jdf , DeHaes JCJM. The "utility" of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional trade-off. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1207-14.

27.

Cohen BJ Is expected utility theory normative for medical decision making? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:1-6.

28.

Kassirer JP , Moskowitz AJ , Lau J. , Pauker SG Decision analysis : a progress report. Ann Intern Med. 1987 ;106:275-91.

29.

Baron J. Why expected utility theory is normative, but not prescriptive? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:7-9.

30.

Wu G. The strengths and limitations of expected utility theory. Med Decis Making. 1996,16:9-10.

31.

Douard J. Is risk neutrality rational? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:10 -1.

32.

Eeckhoudt L. Expected utility theory-is it normative or simply "practical"? Med Decis Making. 1996 ;16:12-3.

33.

Kassirer JP , Pauker SG The toss-up. N Engl J Med 1981;305: 1467-9.

34.

Angell M. Patient preferences in randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1385-7.

The Danger of Applying Group-level Utilities in Decision Analyses of the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer in Individual Patients

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References