Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer: A Clinician's Guide to Understanding Health Utilities

Incidence of genitourinary complications following radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer

Purpose

Studies of genitourinary toxicity following radiotherapy for prostate cancer are mainly from high volume single institutions and the incidence and burden of treatment remain uncertain. Hence we determine the cumulative incidence of treatment-related genitourinary toxicity in patients with localised prostate cancer treated with primary external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at a state population level.

Methods

We analysed data from a prospective population-based cohort, including hospital admission and cancer registry data, for men with localised prostate cancer who underwent primary EBRT without nodal irradiation between 1998 and 2019 in South Australia. The 10-year cumulative incidence of genitourinary toxicity requiring hospitalisation or procedures was determined. Clinical predictors of toxicity and the volume of admissions, non-operative, minor operative and major operative procedures were determined.

Results

All the included patients (n = 3350) had EBRT, with a median (IQR) of 74 Gy (70–78) in 37 fractions (35–39). The 10-year cumulative incidence of was 28.4% (95% CI 26.3–30.6) with a total of 2545 hospital admissions, including 1040 (41%) emergency and 1893 (74%) readmissions. The 10-year cumulative incidence of patients in this cohort requiring a urological operative procedure was 18% (95% CI 16.1–19.9), with a total of 106 (4.2%) non-operative, 1044 (41%) minor operative and 57 (2.2%) major operative urological procedures.

Conclusions

Genitourinary toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer is common. Although there continue to be advancements in radiotherapy techniques, patients and physicians should be aware of the risk of late toxicity when considering EBRT.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-022-04124-x.

Evaluating the predictive value of quantec rectum tolerance dose suggestions on acute rectal toxicity in prostate carcinoma patients treated with IMRT

Aim

To investigate the predictive value of convenience of rectum dosimetry with Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) dose limits, maximum rectum dose (Dmax), total rectal volume (TVrectum), rectal volume included in PTV (VrectumPTV) on Grade 2-3 acute rectal toxicity for utilization in clinical practice.

Background

Numerous previous data have reported frequent acute proctitis after external-beam RT of prostate cancer. Predicting toxicity limited with dose information is inadequate in clinical practice due to comorbidities and medications used.

Materials and Method

Sixty-four non-metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT were enrolled. Patients were treated to a total dose of 70-76 Gy. Rectal dose volume histograms (DVH) of all patients were evaluated retrospectively, and a QUANTEC Score between 0 and 5 was calculated for each patient. The correlation between the rectal DVH data, QUANTEC score, TVrectum, VrectumPTV, rectum Dmax and Grade 2-3 rectal toxicity was investigated.

Results

In the whole group grade 1, 2 and 3 acute rectal toxicities were 25%, 18.8% and 3.1%, respectively. In the DVH data, rectum doses of all patients were under RTOG dose limits. Statistically significant correlation was found between grade 2-3 rectal toxicity and TVrectum (p = 0,043); however. It was not correlated with QUANTEC score, VrectumPTV and Dmax.

Conclusion

Our results were not able to show any significant correlation between increasing convenience with QUANTEC limits and lower rectal toxicity. Conclusively, new dosimetric definitions are warranted to predict acute rectal toxicity more accurately in prostate cancer patients during IMRT treatment.

Variation in Locoregional Prostate Cancer Care and Treatment Trends at Commission on Cancer Designated Facilities: A National Cancer Data Base Analysis 2004 to 2013

BACKGROUND

Contemporary treatment trends for prostate cancer show increased rates of active surveillance. However, nationwide applicability of these reports is limited. Additionally, the effect of Commission on Cancer facility type on prostate cancer treatment patterns is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the National Cancer Data Base to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer, between 2004 and 2013. Our cohort was stratified on the basis of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network prostate cancer risk classes. Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate temporal trends. Random effects hierarchical logit models were used to assess treatment variation at Commission on Cancer facility and institution level.

RESULTS

In 825,707 men, utilization of radiation therapy declined and utilization of radical prostatectomy increased for all prostate cancer risk groups between 2004 and 2013 (P < .0001). Observation for low-risk prostate cancer increased from 16.3% in 2004 to 2005 to 32.0% in 2012 to 2013 (P < .0001). Significant treatment variation was observed on the basis of Commission on Cancer facility type. Across all risk groups, the lowest rates of radical prostatectomy and highest rates of external beam radiation therapy were observed in community cancer programs. The highest rates of observation for low-risk disease were observed in academic centers. Treatment variation according to institution ranged from 14% (95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.15) for androgen deprivation therapy up to 59% (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.73) for cryotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The increased utilization of observation in low-risk prostate cancer is an encouraging finding, which appears to be mainly derived by a decrease in radiotherapy utilization in this risk group. Regardless of tumor characteristics, significant variations in treatment modality exist among different facility types and institutions.

The Effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy versus Three-Dimensional Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of the Literatures

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can deliver higher doses with less damage of healthy tissues compared with three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT). However, for the scenarios with better clinical outcomes for IMRT than 3DCRT in prostate cancer, the results remain ambiguous. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether IMRT can provide better clinical outcomes in comparison with 3DCRT in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 23 studies (n = 9556) comparing the clinical outcomes, including gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical controland overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

IMRT was significantly associated with decreased 2-4 grade acute GI toxicity [risk ratio (RR) = 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.44, 0.78)], late GI toxicity [RR = 0.54, 95%CI (0.38, 0.78)], late rectal bleeding [RR = 0.48, 95%CI (0.27, 0.85)], and achieved better biochemical control[RR = 1.17, 95%CI (1.08, 1.27)] in comparison with 3DCRT. IMRT and 3DCRT remain the same in regard of grade 2-4 acute rectal toxicity [RR = 1.03, 95%CI (0.45, 2.36)], late GU toxicity [RR = 1.03, 95%CI (0.82, 1.30)] and overall survival [RR = 1.07, 95%CI (0.96, 1.19)], while IMRT slightly increased the morbidity of grade 2-4 acute GU toxicity [RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.00, 1.17)].

CONCLUSIONS

Although some bias cannot be ignored, IMRT appears to be a better choice for the treatment of prostate cancer when compared with 3DCRT.

Treatment preference and patient centered prostate cancer care: Design and rationale

Prostate cancer is a slow progressing cancer that affects millions of men in the US. Due to uncertainties in outcomes and treatment complications, it is important that patients engage in informed decision making to choose the "optimal treatment". Patient centered care that encompasses informed decision-making can improve treatment choice and quality of care. Thus, assessing patient treatment preferences is critical for developing an effective decision support system. The objective of this patient-centered randomized clinical trial was to study the comparative effectiveness of a conjoint analysis intervention compared to usual care in improving subjective and objective outcomes in prostate cancer patients. We identified preferred attributes of alternative prostate cancer treatments that will aid in evaluating attributes of treatment options. In this two-phase study, in Phase 1 we used mixed methods to develop an adaptive conjoint task instrument. The conjoint task required the patients to trade-off attributes associated with treatments by assessing their relative importance. Phase 2 consisted of a randomized controlled trial of men with localized prostate cancer. We analyzed the effect of conjoint task intervention on the association between preferences, treatment and objective and subjective outcomes. Our conjoint task instrument can lead to a values-based patient-centered decision aid tool and help tailor treatment decision making to the values of prostate cancer patients. This will ultimately improve clinical decision making, clinical policy process, enhance patient centered care and improve prostate cancer outcomes.

High PSA anxiety and low health literacy skills: drivers of early use of salvage ADT among men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy?

BACKGROUND

Although commonly used, early initiation of salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has not been proven to enhance survival. We evaluated whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) anxiety or health literacy are associated with use of early salvage ADT among men with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The prospective Comprehensive, Observational, Multicenter, Prostate Adenocarcinoma Registry was used to study 375 men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation or brachytherapy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether PSA anxiety and health literacy are associated with salvage ADT as initial management after biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight men (18.1%) received salvage ADT as initial management for PSA recurrence. Men with high PSA anxiety were twice as likely to receive salvage ADT compared with men who did not have high PSA anxiety on both univariable [28.8% versus 13.1%; odds ratio (OR) 2.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-4.00; P = 0.015] and multivariable analysis [adjusted OR (AOR) 2.36; 95% CI 1.21-4.62; P = 0.012]. Furthermore, men who had higher levels of health literacy were nearly half as likely to undergo salvage ADT compared with men who had lower levels of health literacy on univariable analysis (15.2% versus 26.3%; OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.88; P = 0.016), with a trend toward this association on multivariable analysis (AOR 0.58; 95% CI 0.32-1.05; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Among men with PSA recurrence after radiotherapy, odds of use of salvage ADT were nearly twice as great among men with high PSA anxiety or low health literacy, suggesting that these men are receiving higher rates of unproven treatment. Given that early salvage ADT is costly, worsens quality of life, and has not been shown to improve survival, quality improvement strategies are needed for these individuals.

Impact of a web-based treatment decision aid for early-stage prostate cancer on shared decision-making and health outcomes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

At an early stage, prostate cancer patients are often eligible for more than one treatment option, or may choose to defer curative treatment. Without a pre-existing superior option, a patient has to weigh his personal preferences against the risks and benefits of each alternative to select the most appropriate treatment. Given this context, in prostate cancer treatment decision-making, it is particularly suitable to follow the principles of shared decision-making (SDM), especially with the support of specific instruments like decision aids (DAs). Although several alternatives are available, present tools are not sufficiently compatible with routine clinical practice. To overcome existing barriers and to stimulate structural implementation of DAs and SDM in clinical practice, a web-based prostate cancer treatment DA was developed to fit clinical workflow. Following the structure of an existing DA, Dutch content was developed, and values clarification methods (VCMs) were added. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of this DA on (shared) treatment choice and patient-reported outcomes.

Methods/design

Nineteen Dutch hospitals are included in a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial, with an intervention and a control arm. In the intervention group, the DA will be offered after diagnosis, and a summary of the patients’ preferences, which were identified with the DA, can be discussed by the patient and his clinician during later consultation. Patients in the control group will receive information and decisional support as usual. Results from both groups on decisional conflict, treatment choice and the experience with involvement in the decision-making process are compared. Patients are requested to fill in questionnaires after treatment decision-making but before treatment is started, and 6 and 12 months later. This will allow the development of treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and quality of life to be monitored. Clinicians from both groups will evaluate their practice of information provision and decisional support.

Discussion

This study will describe a web-based prostate cancer treatment DA with VCMs. The effect of this DA on the decision-making process and subsequent patient reported outcomes will be evaluated.

Trial registration

The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR4554, registration date 1 May 2014.

Development and application of patient decision aids

With the current overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer resulting from routine screening in Korea, it is necessary to educate the public that not all cancers are malignant. The exposure to patient decision aids (PtDAs) compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to undergo prostate-specific antigen screening. This article introduces the definition, usefulness, and developmental processes of PtDAs and suggests the urgent need for a Korean PtDA related to thyroid cancer screening.

Nationally representative trends and geographic variation in treatment of localized prostate cancer: the Urologic Diseases in America project

BACKGROUND

Several treatment options for clinically localized prostate cancer currently exist under the established guidelines. We aim to assess nationally representative trends in treatment over time and determine potential geographic variation using two large national claims registries.

METHODS

Men with prostate cancer insured by Medicare (1998-2006) or a private insurer (Ingenix database, 2002-2006) were identified using International Classification of Diseases-9 and Current Procedural Terminology-4 codes. Geographic variation and trends in the type of treatment utilized over time were assessed. Geographic data were mapped using the GeoCommons online mapping platform. Predictors of any treatment were determined using a hierarchical generalized linear mixed model using the logit link function.

RESULTS

The use of radical prostatectomy increased, 33-48%, in the privately insured i3 database while remaining stable at 12% in the Medicare population. There was a rapid uptake in the use of newer technologies over time in both the Medicare and i3 cohorts. The use of laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy increased from 1% in 2002 to 41% in 2006 in i3 patients, whereas the incidence increased from 3% in 2002 to 35% in 2006 for Medicare patients. The use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was lower in the i3 cohort and has decreased over time in both i3 and Medicare. Physician density had an impact on the type of primary treatment received in the New England region; however, this trend was not seen in the western or southern regions of the United States.

CONCLUSIONS

Using two large national claims registries, we have demonstrated trends over time and substantial geographic variation in the type of primary treatment used for localized prostate cancer. Specifically, there has been a large increase in the use of newer technologies (that is, laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy). These results elucidate the need for improved data collection on prostate cancer treatment outcomes to reduce unwarranted variation in care.

Factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options: A systematic review

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members' desires on patient decision-making.

Comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer treatment

Prostate-specific antigen testing has dramatically increased the incidence of localized prostate cancer. Most men with localized cancer attempt curative therapy, usually with surgery or radiation. However, there is uncertainty about whether and how to best treat these cancers. No published controlled trials have directly compared surgery against radiation or either treatment against active surveillance. Given the indolent nature of prostate cancer and the substantial risks of treatment-related harms, the effects of cancer and treatment on quality of life are important patient-centered outcomes. Comparative effectiveness research, using observational cohorts, claims data and simulation models, enables comparisons of treatments that have not been studied in controlled trials and captures real-world outcomes data to better support informed decision-making.

Controversies on individualized prostate cancer care: gaps in current practice

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease with a wide spectrum of aggressiveness. Evidence-based guidelines are invaluable but cannot be expected to be extensive enough to provide detailed guidance on the management of all patients. As such, the use of individualized, risk-adapted approaches to the management of PCa is indispensable. However, wide variation in treatment approaches observed for patients in practice suggests that there is an unmet need to improve the individualized approach towards patient care. A holistic approach that encompasses guidelines and evidence-based medicine could be used to guide individualized care for patients with PCa, from first contact through to final outcomes. As a result of an international expert meeting, this paper proposes this approach and highlights some of the factors that can be considered when aiming to identify patients' profiles; individualize treatment; and improve communication between patients and the healthcare teams.

Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE In the absence of high-level evidence or clinical guidelines supporting any given active treatment approach over another for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient preferences may lead to substantial variation in treatment use. METHODS Data were analyzed from 36 clinical sites that contributed data to the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry. Distribution of primary treatment use was measured over time. Prostate cancer risk was assessed using the D'Amico risk groups and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a hierarchical model was constructed that controlled for year of diagnosis, cancer risk variables, and other patient factors to estimate the proportion of variation in primary treatment selection explicable by practice site. Results Among 11,892 men analyzed, 6.8% elected surveillance, 49.9% prostatectomy, 11.6% external-beam radiation, 13.3% brachytherapy, 4.0% cryoablation, and 14.4% androgen deprivation monotherapy. Prostate cancer risk drives treatment selection, but the data suggest both overtreatment of low-risk disease and undertreatment of high-risk disease. The former trend appears to be improving over time, while the latter is worsening. Treatment varies with age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic status. However, treatment patterns vary markedly across clinical sites, and this variation is not explained by case-mix variability or known patient factors. Practice site explains a proportion of this variation ranging from 13% for androgen deprivation monotherapy to 74% for cryoablation. CONCLUSION Substantial variation exists in management of localized prostate cancer that is not explained by measurable factors. A critical need exists for high-quality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer to help guide treatment decision making.

Changes in health state utilities with changes in body mass in the Diabetes Prevention Program

Health utilities are measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL) used in cost-effectiveness research. We evaluated whether changes in body weight were associated with changes in health utilities in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and whether associations differed by treatment assignment (lifestyle intervention, metformin, placebo) or baseline obesity severity. We constructed physical (PCS-36) and mental component summary (MCS-36) subscales and short-form-6D (SF-6D) health utility index for all DPP participants completing a baseline 36-item short form (SF-36) HRQL assessment (N = 3,064). We used linear regression to test associations between changes in body weight and changes in HRQL indicators, while adjusting for other demographic and behavioral variables. Overall differences in HRQL between treatment groups were highly statistically significant but clinically small after 1 year. In multivariable models, weight change was independently associated with change in SF-6D score (increase of 0.007 for every 5 kg weight loss; P < 0.001), but treatment effects independent of weight loss were not. We found no significant interaction between baseline obesity severity and changes in SF-6D with changes in body weight. However, increases in physical function (PCS-36) with weight loss were greater in persons with higher baseline obesity severity. In summary, improvements in HRQL are associated with weight loss but not with other effects of obesity treatments that are unrelated to weight loss. Although improvements in the SF-6D did not exceed commonly reported thresholds for a minimally important difference (0.04), these changes, if causal, could still have a significant impact on clinical cost-effectiveness estimates if sustained over multiple years.

Latent class cluster analysis to understand heterogeneity in prostate cancer treatment utilities

Background

Men with prostate cancer are often challenged to choose between conservative management and a range of available treatment options each carrying varying risks and benefits. The trade-offs are between an improved life-expectancy with treatment accompanied by important risks such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Previous studies of preference elicitation for prostate cancer treatment have found considerable heterogeneity in individuals' preferences for health states given similar treatments and clinical risks.

Methods

Using latent class mixture model (LCA), we first sought to understand if there are unique patterns of heterogeneity or subgroups of individuals based on their prostate cancer treatment utilities (calculated time trade-off utilities for various health states) and if such unique subgroups exist, what demographic and urological variables may predict membership in these subgroups.

Results

The sample (N = 244) included men with prostate cancer (n = 188) and men at-risk for disease (n = 56). The sample was predominantly white (77%), with mean age of 60 years (SD ± 9.5). Most (85.9%) were married or living with a significant other. Using LCA, a three class solution yielded the best model evidenced by the smallest Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), substantial reduction in BIC from a 2-class solution, and Lo-Mendell-Rubin significance of < .001. The three identified clusters were named high-traders (n = 31), low-traders (n = 116), and no-traders (n = 97). High-traders were more likely to trade survival time associated with treatment to avoid potential risks of treatment. Low-traders were less likely to trade survival time and accepted risks of treatment. The no-traders were likely to make no trade-offs in any direction favouring the status quo. There was significant difference among the clusters in the importance of sexual activity (Pearson's χ² = 16.55, P = 0.002; Goodman and Kruskal tau = 0.039, P < 0.001). In multinomial logistic regression, the level of importance assigned to sexual activity remained an independent predictor of class membership. Age and prostate cancer/at-risk status were not significant factors in the multinomial model.

Conclusion

Most existing utility work is undertaken focusing on how people choose on average. Distinct clusters of prostate cancer treatment utilities in our sample point to the need for further understanding of subgroups and need for tailored assessment and interventions.

Personality predicts prostate cancer treatment decision-making difficulty and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients often must decide between several treatment modalities considered equally efficacious, but associated with different benefits and side-effects. For some, the decision-making process can be difficult, but little is known about patient characteristics and cognitive processes that might influence the difficulty of such decisions. This study investigated the roles of dispositional optimism and self-efficacy in PCa treatment decision-making difficulty and satisfaction.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-five patients with clinically localized PCa completed a mail-in paper-and-pencil survey after they had made their treatment decision, but prior to treatment.

RESULTS

After adjusting for covariates, optimism and treatment decision-making self-efficacy were associated with less difficulty and greater satisfaction with the treatment decision-making process. Effects of optimism on difficulty and satisfaction were partially mediated by self-efficacy for making the treatment decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with PCa and who are low in optimism may be at greater risk for treatment decision-making difficulty and lack of treatment decision-making satisfaction, in part, because they have lower confidence in their ability to make the decision compared with those who are more optimistic. As self-efficacy perceptions are modifiable, consideration should be given to including self-efficacy enhancing components as part of PCa treatment decision-making interventions.

Response shift due to diagnosis and primary treatment of localized prostate cancer: a then-test and a vignette study

Aim

Whether a prostate cancer diagnosis induces response shift has not been established so far. Therefore, we assessed response shift in men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.

Patients and methods

Out of 3,892 men who completed a questionnaire before screening, 82 were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Response shift was assessed in 52 (response 63%) by the then-test (EuroQol self-rating of health, Short-Form 36 mental health and vitality) and a novel method: rating of vignettes relating to side effects of prostate cancer treatment (urinary, bowel and erectile dysfunction). Three then-tests were conducted: two referencing pre-diagnosis (measured pre- and post-treatment), and one referencing pre-treatment (measured post-treatment).

Results

Then-test scores of pre-diagnosis health were significantly higher than original scores, indicating a more positive judgement in retrospect. Then-test scores of pre-treatment health were lower than original scores. Especially the vignette on erectile dysfunction was rated less bad after diagnosis versus before (P < 0.001, moderate effect size).

Conclusions

We found evidence for response shift in men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Men evaluated urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction as less bad after they had become patients who can expect to experience these side effects. The rating of vignettes is a promising additional technique to assess response shift.

Pharmacoeconomics of available treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer

The resources devoted to managing metastatic prostate cancer are enormous, yet little attention has been given to directly measuring the economic consequences of treatment alternatives. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of available treatments for metastatic prostate cancer, including hormone-sensitive disease, androgen-independent prostate cancer and locally advanced/progressive disease. We identified 58 articles addressing economic issues related to metastatic prostate cancer. Treatment alternatives with considerably different costs are available in many areas of disease management, most notably, medical androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus surgical castration; combined androgen blockage (CAB) versus monotherapy for initial treatment of hormone-sensitive disease; as well as bisphosphonates and bone-targeted radioisotopes for palliation. The few available pharmacoeconomic studies indicate that the additional costs are not supported by clear and compelling evidence of differences in survival or quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes. Our review revealed that authors often use considerably different assumptions about efficacy and survival outcomes in their analyses, which may be due to the inconsistency of available clinical evidence. Although there have been many clinical trials comparing various therapies, we identified only three trials that included economic assessments. Thus, few sources of economic data are available and most pharmacoeconomic studies rely on information mined from indirect sources. We note that, while there has been considerable enthusiasm about the role of docetaxel regimens in the past 2 years, no study has yet examined the costs of these therapies. Survival remains poor for metastatic disease, thus QOL is the primary consideration for many therapies. However, QOL for treatment of metastatic disease is poorly measured and, in most analyses, the impact of therapy on QOL was inferred based on speculation by the authors. Given the large cost burdens of these treatments, it is essential that we more fully understand the true QOL gains potentially offered by more expensive therapies. The economic studies of advanced prostate cancer highlight several aspects of clinical care that are filled with considerable uncertainty and remain guided by forces other than optimal resource allocation. It is essential that we address the weaknesses in our understanding of the economic consequences of therapies for prostate cancer, and find ways to include economic information into the process of determining optimal therapy.