Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T04:48:47.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

USE OF PATIENT ASSESSED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE INSTRUMENTS IN PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2002–15

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2016

Saku Torvinen ,
Susanne Bergius ,
Risto Roine ,
Leena Lodenius ,
Harri Sintonen  and
Kimmo Taari
Saku Torvinen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Department of Public [email protected]
Susanne Bergius
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Department of Public Health
Risto Roine
Affiliation:
University of Eastern Finland, Research Center for Comparative Effectiveness and Patient Safety
Leena Lodenius
Affiliation:
The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim
Harri Sintonen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Department of Public Health
Kimmo Taari
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Institute of Clinical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to identify and qualitatively describe, in a systematic literature review, published studies that collected prostate cancer patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) estimates by using validated, generic instruments.

Methods: Systematic searches of the literature were made using the Medline, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL electronic databases from 2002 to 2015.

Results: The search identified 2,171 references, of which 237 were obtained for full-text assessment; thirty-three of these articles were deemed relevant and included in the systematic review. An indirect valuation method was used in 73 percent (n = 24) of the studies. The most commonly used HRQoL instrument with an indirect valuation method was the EuroQol (EQ-5D; n = 21), and the second most common was the 15D (n = 5). A direct valuation method was used in 48 percent (n = 16) of the studies. Of these, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was the most often used (n = 10), followed by the Time-Trade-Off (n = 6). HRQoL scores varied in localized and early stage disease between 0.63 and 0.91, and in advanced or metastatic disease stage between 0.50 and 0.87. There was also variance in the HRQoL instruments and study methods used, which explains the large variance in HRQoL scores between the various disease stages.

Conclusions: Although utility and quality-adjusted life-years gained are considered important measures of effectiveness in health care, the number of studies in which utilities of prostate cancer patients have been estimated using generic HRQoL instruments, based on either direct or indirect measurement of HRQoL, is fairly small.

Keywords

Health-related quality of lifeHRQoLHRQoL instrumentSystematic reviewProstate cancer
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , 2016 , pp. 97 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bray, F, Ren, JS, Masuyer, E, Ferlay, J. Estimates of global cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:1133–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Esper, P, Mo, F, Chodak, G, et al. Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology. 1997;50:920–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Cella, DF, Tulsky, DS, Gray, G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570–579.Google Scholar
4. Barry, MJ, Fowler, FJ Jr, O'Leary, MP, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 1992;148:1549–1557.Google Scholar
5. Litwin, MS, Hays, RD, Fink, A, Ganz, PA, Leake, B, Brook, RH. The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: Development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Med Care. 1998;36:1002–1012.Google Scholar
6. Wei, JT, Dunn, RL, Litwin, MS, Sandler, HM, Sanda, MG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;20;56:899–905.Google Scholar
7. Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Deverill, M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–292.Google Scholar
8. Gafni, A. The Standard Gamble Method: What is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29:207–224.Google Scholar
9. Dolan, P, Gudex, C, Kind, P, Williams, A. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141–154.Google Scholar
10. Bleichrodt, H & Johannesson, M. Standard Gamble time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16:155–175.Google Scholar
11. Gudex, C, Dolan, P, Kind, P, Williams, A. Health state valuations from the general public using the Visual Analogue Scale. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:521–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Sintonen, H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–336.Google Scholar
13. Rabin, R, de Charro, F. EQ-SD: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–343.Google Scholar
14. Torrance, GW, Feeny, DH, Furlong, WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702–722.Google Scholar
15. Kaplan, RM, Ganiats, TG, Sieber, WJ, Anderson, JP. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: Critical similarities and differences with SF-36. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10:509–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Rosser, R, Kind, P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus? Int J Epidemiol. 1978;7:347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Hawthorne, G, Richardson, J. Measuring the value of program outcomes: A review of multi attribute utility measures. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001;1:215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Namiki, S, Ishidoya, S, Saito, S, et al. [Quality of life following endocrine therapy for advanced prostate cancer: A comparative study between LH-RH agonist 1-month depot and 3-month depot]. [Article in Japanese]. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi. 2008;99:631–637.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Fernández-Arjona, M, de la Cruz, G, Delgado, JA, Malet, JM, Portillo, JA. [Validation in Spain of the quality of life questionnaire PROSQOLI in patients with advanced prostate cancer]. [Article in Spanish]. Actas Urol Esp. 2012;36:410–417.Google Scholar
20. Smith, DS, Krygiel, J, Nease, RF Jr, Sumner, W Jr, Catalona, WJ. Patient preferences for outcomes associated with surgical management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2002;167:2117–2122.Google Scholar
21. Knight, SJ, Siston, AK, Chmiel, JS, et al. Ethnic variation in localized prostate cancer: A pilot study of preferences, optimism, and quality of life among black and white veterans. Clin Prostate Can. 2004;3:31–37.Google Scholar
22. Reed, SD, Radeva, JI, Glendenning, GA, Saad, F, Schulman, KA. Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171:1537–1542.Google Scholar
23. Volk, RJ, Cantor, SB, Cass, AR, et al. Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:339–348.Google Scholar
24. Stewart, ST, Lenert, L, Bhatnagar, V, Kaplan, RM. Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care. 2005;43:347–355.Google Scholar
25. Elstein, AS, Chapman, GB, Knight, SJ. Patients' values and clinical substituted judgments: The case of localized prostate cancer. Health Psychol. 2005;24 (Suppl):S85–S92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Sommers, BD, Beard, CJ, D'Amico, AV, et al. Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2008;113:2058–2067.Google Scholar
27. Wu, AK, Cooperberg, MR, Sadetsky, N, Carroll, PR. Health related quality of life in patients treated with multimodal therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2008;180:2415–2422.Google Scholar
28. Meghani, SH, Lee, CS, Hanlon, AL, Bruner, DW. Latent class cluster analysis to understand heterogeneity in prostate cancer treatment utilities. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009;9:47.Google Scholar
29. Pickard, AS, Lin, HW, Knight, SJ, et al. Proxy assessment of health-related quality of life in African American and white respondents with prostate cancer: Perspective matters. Med Care. 2009;47:176–183.Google Scholar
30. Freytag, SO, Stricker, H, Lu, M, et al. Prospective randomized phase 2 trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy with or without oncolytic adenovirus-mediated cytotoxic gene therapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89:268–276.Google Scholar
31. Saad, F, Gleason, DM, Murray, R, et al. Zoledronic Acid Prostate Cancer Study Group. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1458–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Weinfurt, KP, Li, Y, Castel, LD, et al. The significance of skeletal-related events for the health-related quality of life of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:579–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Sullivan, PW, Mulani, PM, Fishman, M, Sleep, D. Quality of life findings from a multicenter, multinational, observational study of patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:571–575.Google Scholar
34. Loriot, Y, Miller, K, Sternberg, CN, et al. Effect of enzalutamide on health-related quality of life, pain, and skeletal-related events in asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PREVAIL): Results from a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:509–521 Google Scholar
35. Krahn, M, Ritvo, P, Irvine, J, et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: Implications for clinical policy. Med Care. 2003;41:153–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Krahn, M, Bremner, KE, Tomlinson, G, et al. Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:509–522.Google Scholar
37. Cameron, S, Springer, C, Fox-Wasylyshyn, S, El-Masri, MM. A descriptive study of functions, symptoms, and perceived health state after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16:310–314.Google Scholar
38. Pearcy, R, Wandron, D, O'Boyle, C, MacDonagh, R. Proxy assessment of quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: How accurate are partners and urologists? J R Soc Med. 2008;101:133–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Glazener, C, Boachie, C, Buckley, B, et al. Conservative treatments for urinary incontinence in Men After Prostate Surgery (MAPS): Two parallel randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Skaltsa, K, Longworth, L, Ivanescu, C, Phung, D, Holmstrom, S. Mapping the FACT-P to the Preference-Based EQ-5D Questionnaire in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Value Health. 2014;17:238–244.Google Scholar
41. Diels, J, Hamberg, P, Ford, D, et al. Mapping FACT-P to EQ-5D in a large cross-sectional study of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:591–598.Google Scholar
42. Booth, N, Rissanen, P, Tammela, TL, et al. Health-related quality of life in the Finnish trial of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:39–47.Google Scholar
43. Torvinen, S, Färkkilä, N, Sintonen, H, et al. Health-related quality of life in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1094–1101.Google Scholar
44. Färkkilä, N, Torvinen, S, Roine, RP, et al. Health-related quality of life among breast, prostate and colorectal cancer patients with end-stage disease. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1387–1394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Shimizu, F, Fujino, K, Ito, YM, et al. Factors associated with variation in utility scores among patients with prostate cancer. Value Health. 2008;11:1190–1193.Google Scholar
46. Ruland, CM, Andersen, T, Jeneson, A, et al. Effects of an internet support system to assist cancer patients in reducing symptom distress: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36:6–17.Google Scholar
47. Soyupek, F, Soyupek, S, Perk, H, Ozorak, A. Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: Effects on hand function. Urol Oncol. 2008;26:141–146.Google Scholar
48. Korfage, IJ, Essink-Bot, ML, Borsboom, GJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Cancer. 2005;116:291–296.Google Scholar
49. Mickevičienė, A, Vanagas, G, Jievaltas, M, Ulys, A. Does illness perception explain quality of life of patients with prostate cancer? Medicina (Kaunas). 2013;49:235–241.Google ScholarPubMed
50. Wang, EY, Eriksson, HG. Quality of life and functional outcomes 10 years after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Ups J Med Sci. 2014;119:32–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Eton, DT, Lepore, SJ. Prostate cancer and health-related quality of life: A review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2002;11:307–326.Google Scholar
52. Penson, D, Litwin, M, Aaronson, N. Health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:1653–1661.Google Scholar
53. Bremner, KE, Chong, CA, Tomlinson, G, Alibhai, SM, Krahn, MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:288–298.Google Scholar
54. McNaughton-Collins, M, Walker-Corkery, E, Barry, MJ. Health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and economic outcome measures in studies of prostate cancer screening and treatment, 1990–2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;33:78–101.Google Scholar
55. Bergman, J, Litwin, MS. Quality of life in men undergoing active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;45:242–249.Google Scholar
56. Efficace, F, Bottomley, A, van Andel, G. Health related quality of life in prostate carcinoma patients: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cancer. 2003;97:377–388.Google Scholar
57. Bacon, CG, Kawachi, I. Quality-of-life differences among various populations of localized prostate cancer patients: 2001. Curr Urol Rep. 2002;3:239–243.Google Scholar
58. Hamoen, EH, De Rooij, M, Witjes, JA, Barentsz, JO, Rovers, MM. Measuring health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: A systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:69.e19–e28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59. Ware, JE Jr, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.Google Scholar
60. Matza, LS, Chung, K, Van Brunt, K, et al. Health state utilities for skeletal-related events secondary to bone metastases. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:7–18.Google Scholar
61. Torrence, G, Thomas, W, Sackett, D. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118–133.Google Scholar
62. Gold, M, Patric, D, Torrence, G, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold, M, Siegel, J, Russell, L, Weinstein, M, eds. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:82–134.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Torvinen supplementary material

Table S1

Download Torvinen supplementary material(File)
File 45.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Torvinen supplementary material

Table S2

Download Torvinen supplementary material(File)
File 26.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Torvinen supplementary material

Table S3

Download Torvinen supplementary material(File)
File 116.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Torvinen supplementary material

Table S4

Download Torvinen supplementary material(File)
File 29.5 KB