Concordance of couples' prostate cancer screening recommendations from a decision analysis

Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Disutility allows to identify how much population values intervention-related harms contributing to knowledge on the benefits/harms ratio of cancer screening programs. This systematic review evaluates disutility related to cancer screening applying a utility theory framework.

METHODS

Using a predefined protocol, Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google scholar and supplementary sources were systematically searched. The framework grouped disutilities associated with breast, cervical, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening programs into the screening, diagnostic work up, and treatment phases. We assessed the quality of included studies according to the relevance to target population, risk of bias, appropriateness of measure and the time frame.

RESULTS

Out of 2840 hits, we included 38 studies, of which 27 measured (and others estimated) disutilities. Around 70% of studies had medium to high-level quality. Measured disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss were 0-0.03 and 0-0.0013 respectively in screening phases. Both disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss had similar ranges in diagnostic work up (0-0.26), and treatment (0.09-0.27) phases. We found no measured disutilities available for lung cancer screening and-little evidence for disutilities in treatment phase. Almost 40% of the estimated disutility values were above the range of measured ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer screening programs led to low disutities related to screening phase, and low to moderate disutilities related to diagnostic work up and treatment phases. These disutility values varied by the measurement instrument applied, and were higher in studies with lower quality. The estimated disutility values comparing to the measured ones tended to overestimate the harms.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utility Values of Patients and Partners Between 2007 and 2016

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.

Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.

CONCLUSION

The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095585.

Use of forecasted assessment of quality of life to validate time-trade-off utilities and a prostate cancer screening decision-analytic model

PURPOSE

To determine whether the forecasted assessment of how someone would feel in a future health state can be predictive of utilities (e.g. as elicited by the time-trade-off method) and also predictive of optimal decisions as determined by a decision-analytic model.

METHODS

We elicited time-trade-off utilities for prostate cancer treatment outcomes from 168 men. We also elicited forecasted assessments, that is, an informal, non-quantitative, descriptive evaluation, of impotence and incontinence from these men. We used multivariate regression analysis to explore the relationship between forecasted assessment and reluctance to trade length for improved quality of life, that is, the unwillingness to trade length of life for improved quality of life in the time-trade-off utility assessment and the relationship between the forecasted assessments and the optimal decision of whether to undergo screening for prostate cancer as determined from a previously published decision-analytic model.

RESULTS

Importance of sexual function was strongly related to impotence utilities (P < 0.05). Based on the multivariate analysis, significant predictors for the utility of severe incontinence were family income, family history of prostate cancer, work status and attitude towards needing to wear an incontinence pad. However, no variables were statistically significant predictors for the utility of complete impotence. The importance of sexual functioning was a significant predictor of the optimal decision.

CONCLUSION

Anticipated difficulty adjusting to adverse health effects were highly related to preferences and could be used as a proxy measure of utility. Similarly, the importance of sexual functioning, a future preference, was highly related to the optimal decision, which validates our previously published decision-analytic model.