Magnus A, Isaranuwatchai W, Mihalopoulos C, Brown V, Carter R. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utility Values of Patients and Partners Between 2007 and 2016.
MDM Policy Pract 2019;
4:2381468319852332. [PMID:
31192309 PMCID:
PMC6540514 DOI:
10.1177/2381468319852332]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2017] [Accepted: 03/03/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. There is widespread agreement that both the length and
quality of life matter when assessing new technologies and/or models of care in
the treatment for cancer patients. Quality of life for partners/carers also
matters, particularly for prostate cancer. Purpose. This systematic
review aims to provide up-to-date utility values along the prostate cancer care
continuum (i.e., from prescreening through to palliative care) for use where
future trial-based or modelled economic evaluations cannot collect primary data
from men and/or partners. Data Sources. A protocol was developed
and registered on the international register of systematic reviews—PROSPERO.
Databases searched included EBSCO Information Services (CINAHL, EconLit, Global
Health, HEED, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO), Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, Web of Science, and Embase. Study Selection. Study
selection terms included health-related quality of life, prostate cancer, and
partners or carers. Data Extraction. The authors identified
articles published between 2007 and 2016 that provided health state utility
values, with statistical uncertainty, for men with or at risk of prostate cancer
and/or their partner/carers. Data Synthesis and Results. Study
quality and generalizability of utilities was evaluated and meta-analysis
conducted against prespecified criteria. From 906 original articles, 29 recent
primary studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We tabulate all the
utility values with uncertainty, along with considerable methodological detail
and patient population characteristics. Limitations. Utility values
pertaining to carers/partners were limited to one study.
Conclusions. Studies varied in design, measurement instruments
utilized, quality, and generalizability. There is sufficient qualitative and
quantitative detail for the reported utility values to be readily incorporated
into economic evaluations. More research is needed with carers/partners and with
newly developing prostate cancer-specific quality of life tools.
Collapse