© 2004 by Oxford University Press
2004 © Oxford University Press
Article |
Health-Related Quality of Life, Satisfaction, and Economic Outcome Measures in Studies of Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment, 1990-2000
M. McNaughton-Collins, E. Walker-Corkery, and M.J. Barry, Medical Practices Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Correspondence to: Mary McNaughton-Collins, MD, MPH, Medical Practices Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford St., 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114 (e-mail: mmcnaughtoncollins{at}partners.org).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TopNotes Abstract IntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Prostate cancer outcomes research incorporates a broad spectrum of endpoints, from clinical or intermediate endpoints, such as tumor shrinkage or patient compliance, to final endpoints, such as survival or disease-free survival. Three types of nontraditional endpoints that are of growing interest—health-related quality of life (QOL), satisfaction with care, and economic cost impact—hold the promise of improving our ability to understand the full burden of prostate cancer screening and treatment. In this article we review the last decade's published literature regarding the health-related QOL, satisfaction, and economic outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment to determine the "state of the science" of outcomes measurement. The focus is the enumeration of the types of outcome measurement used in the studies not the determination of the results of the studies. Studies were identified by searching Medline (1990-2000). Articles were included if they presented original data on any patient-centered outcome (including costs or survival alone) for men screened and treated for prostate cancer. Review papers were excluded unless they were quantitative syntheses of the results of other primary studies. Economic and decision analytic papers were included if they presented information on outcomes of real or hypothetical patient cohorts. Each retrieved article was reviewed by one of the authors. Included papers were assigned one primary, mutually exclusive study design. For the "primary data" studies, information was abstracted on care setting, dates of the study, sample size, racial distribution, age, tumor differentiation, tumor stage, survival, statistical power, and types of outcomes measures (QOL-generic, QOL-cancer specific, QOL-prostate cancer specific, satisfaction, costs, utilities, and other). For the "economic and decision analytic" papers, information was abstracted on stage of disease, age range, outcomes, costs, and whether utilities were measured. Of the 198 included papers, there were 161 primary data papers categorized as follows: randomized trial (n = 28), nonrandomized trial (n = 13), prospective or retrospective cohort study (n = 55), case-control study (n = 0), cross-sectional study (n = 63), and meta-analysis (n = 2). The remaining 37 papers were economic and decision analytic papers. Among the 149 primary data papers that contained patient outcome data, there were 42 standard instruments used, accounting for 44% (179 of 410) of the measures overall. Almost three-quarters (71%) of papers included one, two, or three outcomes measures of all types (standard and nonstandard); three papers included seven outcomes measures, and one paper included nine. Over the 11-year time period, there was a nonstatistically significant trend toward more frequent use of standardized QOL instruments and a statistically significant trend toward increased reporting of race (P = .003). Standardization of measurement of health-related QOL, satisfaction with care, and economic cost effect among men screened and treated for prostate cancer is needed. A core set of similar questions, both generic and disease-specific, should ideally be asked in every study, although investigators should be encouraged to include additional question sets as appropriate to individual studies to get a more complete picture of how patients screened and treated for this condition are doing over time.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Prostate cancer outcomes research incorporates a broad spectrum of endpoints, from clinical or intermediate endpoints such as tumor shrinkage or patient compliance, to final endpoints such as survival or disease-free survival. Our article focuses on three types of final endpoints that are of growing interest to patients, providers, payers, and regulators—health-related quality of life (QOL), satisfaction with care, and economic cost effect. Such nontraditional endpoints hold the promise of improving our ability to understand the full burden of prostate cancer screening and treatment, although there remain methodologic challenges to overcome in measuring these nontraditional endpoints.
|
BACKGROUND ON PROSTATE CANCER |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Prostate cancer is a major public health concern for men, with 198 100 new prostate cancer cases and 31 500 prostate cancer deaths expected in the United States in 2001 (1). As a result of widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis is now 16%, whereas the lifetime risk of a prostate cancer death is 3.4% (2), indicating that most men diagnosed with prostate cancer are not destined to die of their disease. In the "PSA era," the difficulty in distinguishing indolent prostate cancers from those destined to cause morbidity or death has resulted in many men who are not destined to die of their prostate cancer being diagnosed and treated aggressively.
Early detection of prostate cancer is controversial because of the absence of randomized trials showing that screening and subsequent aggressive treatment with surgery or radiation reduces mortality, as well as because of the uncertain natural history of prostate cancer. Large, randomized trials of prostate cancer screening are underway in the United States (the Prostate, Lung, Colon, and Ovary Screening Trial) and Europe (the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer), and randomized trials of prostate cancer treatment are also underway in the United States (the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial). A recently published trial of radical prostatectomy versus expectant management from Scandinavia reported a small absolute reduction in prostate-cancer specific mortality with surgery after approximately 6 years of follow-up, but few of the study subjects were diagnosed through screening (3). Meanwhile, advocates of prostate cancer screening cite the recent declines in population-based prostate cancer mortality in the United States (4) as evidence of the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. However, great caution must be exercised in drawing such conclusions from observational data because alternative explanations exist, as detailed in a three-part series in this journal (5-7).
|
POTENTIAL ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF OUTCOMES RESEARCH FOR THIS CANCER |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The effect of widespread prostate cancer screening on the psychological health of participants has received only limited attention (8,9), and the net value of mass screening has been questioned (10). Because screening affects a large number of men relative to those who benefit, even a small adverse effect of screening on QOL could carry an effect on public health, outweighing any gain to be achieved by the screening. Outcomes research is needed to evaluate topics such as the potential benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening from the patient's perspective, the barriers to follow-up of suspicious screening tests, and the economic burden of screening.
Men diagnosed with either early or advanced prostate cancer face difficult treatment decisions, because there are various treatment options at each phase of disease, but the optimal treatment for any given stage of disease is unknown. For practical purposes, the phases of care for prostate cancer are broadly grouped as nonmetastatic and metastatic. With nonmetastatic disease there is a gradient of probabilities of extracapsular spread or nodal metastases (11), rather than a sharp distinction, in part because one would need surgical staging to be certain. For metastatic disease, this phase of care can be subclassified as hormone-sensitive or hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
For men with clinically localized prostate cancer, the choices range from aggressive, potentially curative therapy, such as radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation, and brachytherapy, which are all associated with clinically important side effects (12-18), to watchful waiting. Because of the good prognosis of the majority of clinically localized prostate cancers regardless of treatment choice, treatment outcomes, such as the likelihood of experiencing side effects from the various treatments, may be a critical factor for some men faced with a prostate cancer treatment decision (19). Most men treated have a >10-year life expectancy; thus, they have the potential to live many years with the outcomes (i.e., side effects) of therapy. For men with a rising PSA after presumably curative surgery or radiation therapy, the treatment of choice is often androgen deprivation; however, hormonal therapy has yet to be proven effective in this situation, and it is associated with clinically important side effects, as well. Meanwhile, data on the natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy show that the median time to metastasis is 8 years, and the median time to death once metastases were documented is another 5 years—a relatively long interval between biochemical recurrence and clinical metastatic disease and death (20). Therefore, men weighing their choices of prostate cancer treatment should focus on the quality as well as the quantity of their lives (21).
In this report we review the last decade's published literature regarding the outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment to determine the "state of the science" of outcomes measurement. The purpose of the review was to enumerate the types of outcome measurement used in the studies, rather than to determine the results of each study. Prostate cancer outcome measures can be applied in a variety of arenas (as noted in this Monograph's "Overview," p. 1-7); however, this article examines their use in descriptive and analytical studies. Thus, the focus of our article is on randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and economic and decision analytic investigations. It does not address the use of outcome measures in prostate cancer population surveillance studies or in clinical practice to improve patient-provider decision-making. The latter two arenas of application are discussed elsewhere in this Monograph.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Literature Search Strategy
The search strategy used to identify potentially relevant articles is provided below. The search strategy was designed to maximize the specificity of the search. The original search was run on September 1, 1999, and an update search was run on February 14, 2001. Search strategy (MH = MESH heading; MT = major topic):
Quality of life (MH), or
Survival analysis (MT), or
Health status indicators (MH), or
Activities of daily living (MH), or
Decision support techniques (MT), or
Decision making (MT), or
Choice behavior (MT), or
Medical futility (MT), or
Economics (MT), or
Costs and cost analysis (MT), or
Economic value of life (MT), or
Economics, hospital (MT), or
Economics, nursing (MT), or
Economics, pharmaceutical (MT), or
Health services research (MH), or
Delivery of health care (MT), or
Attitude to death (MT), or
Attitude to health (MT), or
Health services needs and demand (MT), or
Needs assessment (MT), or
Professional-patient relations (MT), or
Quality of health care (MT), or
Medical audit (MT), or
Nursing audit (MT), or
Outcome and process assessment (health care) (MT), or
Peer review, health care (MT), or
Professional review organizations (MT), or
Program evaluation (MT), or
Quality assurance, health care (MT), or
Guidelines (MT), or
Total quality management (MT), or
Quality indicators, health care (MT), or
Utilization review (MT),
And Prostatic Neoplasms,
And English language,
And Journal article,
And 1990-1999 (August); update was done for 8/99-2/01
And Abstract present
Each retrieved article was reviewed by one of the authors. Articles were included in the overview if they presented original data on any patient-centered outcome (including costs or survival alone) for men screened or treated for prostate cancer (review papers were excluded unless they were quantitative syntheses of the results of other primary studies). Reasons for exclusions were enumerated. Economic and decision analytic papers were included if they presented information on outcomes of real or hypothetical patient cohorts.
Summary Descriptions of Articles Identified, Retrieved, and Reviewed
The search strategy identified 397 potentially eligible papers (297 from the original search and 100 from the update search). All 397 papers were retrieved. After review of the retrieved papers, 198 were included in the overview and 199 were excluded. A table reporting summary information for each of the included papers is provided as Appendix 1. Reasons for exclusion for the remainder of the papers are provided in Table 1. Each paper was also identified as pertaining to prostate cancer screening or prostate cancer treatment. Overall, 54 of 397 papers were categorized as screening papers, and seven met the criteria for inclusion in this review. The most common reason for exclusion of a screening paper was because it reported solely on baseline knowledge or attitudes regarding prostate cancer screening, but not on QOL outcomes (n = 21). The second most common exclusion was for lack of an appropriate patient-centered outcome (i.e., only laboratory values or test results may have been presented; n = 16).
|
|
Data Abstraction Technique
A data abstraction form was developed, pretested, revised, and finalized for this study. For papers excluded after review, only the reason or reasons for the exclusion were recorded. Each included paper was assigned one primary, mutually exclusive study design: randomized trial, nonrandomized trial, cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study, meta-analysis, decision modeling, cost-identification study, cost-effectiveness study, or cost-benefit study. We then abstracted different information for the first six design categories (generally presenting primary data on actual patient outcomes, the "primary data" studies) and the last four categories (the "economic and decision analytic" papers, usually presenting outcomes data on hypothetical patients).
For the primary data papers, available information was abstracted on the care setting, dates of the study, racial distribution of the study population, mean or median age, and total sample size. Distributions of tumor differentiation (well, moderate, or poor) and cancer stage were also abstracted when presented, and whether survival was reported was noted. For those papers included from the update search, whether statistical power and clinical importance of observed differences were discussed, and whether confidence intervals were provided around point estimates of measured outcomes, was also noted. Finally, all patient-centered outcome measures were enumerated. The measures included single and multi-item patient questionnaires, addressing different aspects of the effect of prostate cancer screening and treatment on the lives of men. Reviewers were provided a menu of standard published health-related QOL (HRQOL) questionnaires used in prostate cancer outcome studies and could record an unlimited number of additional outcome measures for each study. Reviewers also indicated whether, using their best judgment, these questionnaires were primarily addressing overall HRQOL, cancer-specific HRQOL, prostate cancer-specific HRQOL, patient satisfaction, risk-based utilities for different health states, or other domains.
For the economic and decision analytic papers, available information was abstracted on stage of disease (localized or metastatic), age range, outcomes (survival and quality-adjusted survival), costs, and whether utilities were measured. For utilities, whether patients or proxies completed utility assessments was reported.
Statistical Analysis
Completed abstraction forms were entered into an Access database and imported into SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) for analysis. Trends in the proportion of papers using standard HRQOL measures and presenting age and race data were assessed with the chi-square test for trend (22).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Distribution of Study Designs for Included Papers
Of the 198 included papers, there were 161 (81%) "primary data papers" categorized as follows: randomized trial (n = 28), nonrandomized trial (n = 13), prospective or retrospective cohort study (n = 55), case-control study (n = 0), cross-sectional study (n = 63), and meta-analysis (n = 2). The 37 "economic and decision analytic papers" consisted of 17 decision modeling studies, 13 cost-identification studies, and 7 cost-effectiveness studies (Table 2).
|
Characteristics of Study Populations
Information on the study populations in the primary data papers was often incomplete. Dates of data collection were missing 40% of the time.
Age and Race
Of the 161 primary data studies, 28 (17%) did not report the age of their subjects. The median value of the mean/median ages of the studies reporting this variable was 68 (interquartile range = 67-71). Only 53 (33%) of the 161 studies described the racial distribution of the study populations, although a number of the studies that did not provide a racial distribution were from countries with fairly homogenous populations. Fifty papers provided a proportion of whites in the study population (median proportion = 88%), 38 papers provided information on blacks (median proportion = 11%), 16 papers provided information on Hispanics (median proportion 3.4%), and 6 papers provided a proportion of "other" races (median = 1.3%). Although prostate cancer has a higher incidence and mortality among African Americans, only eight studies (23-30) had a preponderance of black subjects, and the sample sizes of these studies were limited (range of number of African American subjects, 42-132). The study with the largest sample size of African American men was a screening study with 51% white men and 44% African American men (n = 415). (31)
Tumor Stage and Grade
Almost one-quarter (24%) of primary data studies did not include stage of disease, and another 4% reported incomplete data. More than three-quarters (77%) of these papers did not report tumor grades. Of those papers that reported information on grade distribution, the median proportion of poorly differentiated tumors was 22%, moderately differentiated tumors was 53%, and well-differentiated tumors was 19.5%. Not all papers reported on all categories.
Sample Size and Power Calculations
The median sample size for the 161 primary data studies was 125.5 (interquartile range = 58-281). The smallest study (32) was a study of six men with metastatic prostate cancer who were treated with strontium chloride Sr 89 for their painful bone metastases, and whose clinical response was determined by a series of clinical notes and patient observations which might generally reflect QOL, although no details of the assessment were given. The largest study (33) was a comparison of prostate cancer treatment practices and 10-year survival outcomes in health maintenance organization and fee-for service populations. Of the 43 primary data studies reviewed after the updated search, nine (21%) discussed statistical power (33-41), six (14%) discussed the clinical importance of observed differences (34,37,38,42-44), and eight (19%) reported confidence intervals (33-35,37,38,41,45,46). These three variables were not included in the abstraction form for the original search.
Care Setting
The care settings for the 161 primary data papers were categorized as follows: single institution (n = 82), multi-institution (n = 65), community-based (n = 7), health maintenance organization or managed care (n = 1), large U.S. population-based database (Medicare; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; n = 3), and miscellaneous (n = 3; patients from a prostate cancer support group [n = 1], meta-analysis of Medline papers [n = 1], and not reported [n = 1]).
Type of Outcome Measured
Of the 161 primary data papers, survival was reported in 55 (34%) of reviewed papers; 12 papers reported survival data alone (33,45-55). Of note, there are likely to be survival papers that were not included in our review, because of the specifications of our search strategy. Among the 149 primary data papers that contained patient outcome data, there were 42 standard instruments used, accounting for 44% (179 of 410) of the measures overall. Almost three-quarters (71%) of papers included one, two, or three outcomes measures of all types (standard and nonstandard). Three papers included seven outcome measures (27,56,57), and one included nine (58). Table 3 shows the types of outcomes measured and the number of papers using the various types of outcome measures.
|
Specific Instruments Used by Type of Outcome Measured
Table 4 shows the specific instruments used within each outcome type and the number of uses of the various instruments among the 149 primary data papers measuring outcomes other than survival. The SF-36 was the most commonly used QOL-generic instrument, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was the most commonly used QOL-cancer specific instrument, and the UCLA-PCI was the most commonly used QOL-prostate cancer specific instrument.
|
There were no standard measures of satisfaction used, although 12 papers mentioned that satisfaction was measured in some way. One paper (27) used an "Attitudes towards care questionnaire" adopted from the 43 item patient satisfaction questionnaire used in the Medical Outcomes Study. Of the remaining 11 papers that measured satisfaction, six used a general question about overall satisfaction with treatment (56,57,59-62), and six asked a question about whether the patient would choose the treatment again (56,57,59,60,62,63). Two studies asked a single question about whether the patient would recommend a treatment to someone else (64,65), and two studies asked about patients' confidence in their doctors (59,62). One paper stated that patients were asked about their satisfaction with the information their physicians presented and about their satisfaction with the treatment options they received (26).
Among the 37 economic and decision analytic papers, 13 measured some or all costs directly (66-78), and 14 used estimated costs either in combination with actual measured costs or alone (66,67,70,72,74,78-86). One primary data paper included a measurement of costs, using actual economic costs as well as charges and estimates (87).
There were five primary data papers that measured utilities (23,24,27,40,88). The utility assessment methodologies included were time trade-off (n = 5) (23,24,27,40,88), standard gamble (n = 1) (27), Health Utility Index (n = 1) (40), and analog (40) or rating (27) scales (each used once).
Among the 37 economic and decision analytic papers, 16 papers measured patient utilities. These studies included two that measured utilities directly from patients (67,89), 11 that used proxies to measure utilities (72,78,80,90-97), and one that used both methods (98). Two papers did not supply enough information to allow determination of whether the utilities were obtained from patients or proxies (79,99). Of the three that included utilities measured directly from patients, two used time trade-off assessments (89,98) and one a QOL scale transformation using a previously published technique (67). Of the 12 papers that used proxy utility measurements, eight used time trade-off (72,80,90-93,96,98), one used a trade-off measurement of survival versus potency (95), two calculated their utility measurements (78,97), and one used an instrument called the Kaplan-Anderson Well-Being Scale (94).
Phase of Care
Table 5 shows the number of papers that examined patients in various phases of prostate cancer screening and treatment by study design. There were seven screening papers, two prospective cohort studies (31,100), and five economic and decision analytic studies (72,81,90,94,96). Forty-five papers (23%) did not provide data or provided incomplete data on cancer stage, making an assignment of phase of care impossible (31 [49%] cross-sectional studies, 10 [18%] cohort studies, two [7%] randomized trials, one [50%] meta-analysis, and one [8%] cost-identification study). Among treatment papers, studies of patients with nonmetastatic disease (65 papers) were more common than studies of patients with metastatic disease (49 papers) or both (32 papers).
|
Time Trends Across the Decade for Use of Standard HRQOL Instruments, Age, and Race
To assess time trends from 1990 to 2000 (11 years), the primary data papers were grouped by publication date into three time periods: 1990 to 1993, 1994 to 1997, and 1998 to 2000, representing the early, middle, and late years of the decade. Table 6 shows a non-statistically significant trend toward more frequent use of standardized HRQOL instruments over the 11-year time frame, no trend toward more frequent reporting of age, and a statistically significant trend toward increased reporting of at least some information on race (P = .003).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Strengths and Limitations of Prostate Cancer Outcomes Research to Date
Strengths of the literature. There are a number of published, validated prostate cancer-specific HRQOL indices, and as can be seen in Table 4, these measures were used in many of the studies included in our review. Also, over time, standard HRQOL instruments tended to be used more frequently, although this trend was not statistically significant. Finally, there was a statistically significant trend over the decade toward improved reporting of basic demographic information, such as race.
Limitations of the literature. The recent literature describing the outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment is flawed in many respects. First, many studies relied on unvalidated instruments, despite the availability of published, validated measures. Second, when validated instruments were used, studies did not use the same ones. Thus, the heterogeneity in outcomes measures made it almost impossible to compare results across studies. Third, very few studies examined patient-centered screening outcomes. Fourth, relatively few randomized trials addressed treatment options for men with advanced disease. Fifth, non-experimental studies tended to be cross-sectional in nature, lacking data on subjects' baseline demographics and condition before diagnosis and treatment, and not allowing assessment of how prostate cancer patients' qualities of life evolve over time. This problem is particularly important, because many prostate cancer patients, even those men with advanced disease, survive for years.
Limitations of this Systematic Review
The search strategy was developed favoring specificity, perhaps at the expense of some sensitivity. A broader search strategy might well have identified additional papers with patient-centered outcomes data from patients screened or treated for prostate cancer. However, it is likely that the papers we identified, which were specifically categorized as having relevant outcomes data in Medline, are representative of the body of literature we did not identify.
Recommendations for Outcomes Measurement in Prostate Cancer
In general, the message to the research community interested in prostate cancer screening and treatment outcomes is clear. First, there needs to be consensus on which validated instruments, both generic and disease-specific, should be regarded as the gold standard for measuring prostate cancer screening and treatment outcomes, and then this core set of questions should be asked in every study, although investigators should be encouraged to include additional question sets as appropriate to individual studies to get a more complete picture of how men screened and treated for prostate cancer are doing over time.
|
NOTES |
|---|
See "Note" following "References."
This work was supported by contracts from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Dr. McNaughton-Collins is a recipient of a Doris Duke Clinical Scientist Award.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionBackground on Prostate CancerPotential Role and Importance...MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1 Greenlee R, Hill-Harmon M, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer statistics,
2001. CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51: 15
-36.
2 National Institutes of Health. SEER Cancer statistics review, 1973-1998. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 2002.
3 Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, Salo J, Folmerz P, Haggman
M, et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful
waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 781
-89.
4 Tarone R, Chu K, Brawley O. Implications of stage-specific survival rates in assessing recent declines in prostate cancer mortality rates. Epidemiology 2000;11: 167 -70.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
5 Etzioni R, Legler J, Feuer E, Merrill R, Cronin K, Hankey B. Cancer
surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer—Part III:
quantifying the link between population prostate-specific antigen testing and
recent declines in prostate cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer
Inst 1999;91: 1033
-39.
6 Feuer E, Merrill R, Hankey B. Cancer surveillance series:
interpreting trends in prostate cancer—Part II: cause of death
misclassification and the recent rise and fall in prostate cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst
1999;91: 1025
-32.
7 Hankey B, Feuer E, Clegg L, Hayes R, Legler J, Prorok P, et al.
Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer—Part
I: evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence,
mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1017
-24.
8 Essink-Bot M, de Koning H, Nijs H, Kirkels W, van der Maas P,
Schroder F. Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate
cancer on health-related quality of life. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90: 925
-31.
9 Gustafsson O, Theorell T, Norming U, Perski A, Ohstrom M, Nyman C. Psychological reactions in men screened for prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1995;75: 631 -36.[ISI][Medline]
10 Stewart-Brown S, Farmer A. Screening could seriously damage your
health. BMJ 1997;314: 533
-34.
11 Partin A, Kattan M, Subong E, Walsh P, Wojno K, Oesterling J, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1997;277: 1445 -51.[Abstract]
12 Crook J, Lukka H, Klotz L, Bestic N, Johnston M. Systematic
overview of the evidence for brachytherapy in clinically localized prostate
cancer. CMAJ 2001;164: 975
-81.
13 Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, Roman A, Wasson J, Wennberg JE. Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment following radical prostatectomy: the National Medicare experience (1988-1990). Urology 1993;42: 622 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
14 Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, Wasson JH, Bin L. Outcomes of external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study of Medicare beneficiaries in three SEER areas. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2258 -65.[Abstract]
15 Jonler M, Messing EM, Rhodes PR, Bruskewitz R. Sequlae of radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol 1994; 74: 352 -58.[ISI][Medline]
16 Jonler M, Roitter M, Brinkman R, Messing E, Rhodes P, Bruskewitz R. Sequelae of definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer localized to the pelvis. Urology 1994;44: 876 -82.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17 Stanford J, Feng Z, Hamilton A, Gilliland F, Stephenson R, Eley J,
et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically
localized prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA
2000;283: 354
-60.
18 Talcott J, Rieker P, Propert K, Clark J, Wishnow K, Loughlin K, et
al. Patient-reported impotence and incontinence after nerve-sparing radical
prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 1117
-23.
19 Potosky A, Legler J, Albertsen P, Stanford J, Gilliland F, Hamilton
A, et al. Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate
cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer
Inst 2000;92: 1582
-92.
20 Pound C, Partin A, Eisenberger M, Chan D, Pearson J, Walsh P.
Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical
prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281: 1591
-97.
21 Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1995; 273: 129 -35.[Abstract]
22 Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1995.
23 Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel TM, Sharifi R, Nadler RB, Andrews A,
et al. Prostate cancer patients' utilities for health states: how it looks
depends on where you stand. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 278
-86.
24 Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel TM, Nadler RB, Sharifi R, Bennett CL. A multi-attribute model of prostate cancer patient's preferences for health states. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 171 -80.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
25 Dale W, Campbell T, Ignacio L, Song P, Kopnick M, Mamo C, et al. Self-assessed health-related quality of life in men being treated for prostate cancer with radiotherapy: instrument validation and its relation to patient-assessed bother of symptoms. Urology 1999; 53: 359 -66.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
26 Demark-Wahnefried W, Schildkraut JM, Iselin CE, Conlisk E, Kavee A, Aldrich TE, et al. Treatment options, selection, and satisfaction among African American and white men with prostate carcinoma in North Carolina. Cancer 1998;83: 320 -30.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
27 Kim SP, Bennett CL, Chan C, Chmiel J, Falcone D, Knight SJ, et al. QOL and outcomes research in prostate cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Oncology (Huntingt) 1999; 13: 823 -32.[Medline]
28 Knight SJ, Chmiel JS, Kuzel T, Sharp L, Albers M, Fine R, et al. Quality of life in metastatic prostate cancer among men of lower socioeconomic status: feasibility and criterion related validity of 3 measures. J Urol 1998;160: 1765 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
29 Sharp LK, Knight SJ, Nadler R, Albers M, Moran E, Kuzel T, et al. Quality of life in low-income patients with metastatic prostate cancer: divergent and convergent validity of three instruments. Qual Life Res 1999;8: 461 -70.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
30 Wang H, Huang E, Dale W, Campbell T, Ignacio L, Kopnick M, et al. Self-assessed health-related quality of life in men who have completed radiotherapy for prostate cancer: instrument validation and its relation to patient-assessed bother of symptoms. Int J Cancer 2000; 90: 163 -72.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
31 Abbott RR, Taylor DK, Barber K. A comparison of prostate knowledge of African-American and Caucasian men: changes from prescreening baseline to postintervention. Cancer J Sci Am 1998; 4: 175 -7.[ISI][Medline]
32 Patel BR, Flowers WM Jr. Systemic radionuclide therapy with strontium chloride Sr 89 for painful skeletal metastases in prostate and breast cancer. South Med J 1997; 90: 506 -8.[ISI][Medline]
33 Yao SL, Lu-Yao G. Population-based study of relationships between
hospital volume of prostatectomies, patient outcomes, and length of hospital
stay. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1950
-6.
34 Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Barichello M, Battaglia M, Carmignani G,
Comeri G, et al. Bicalutamide monotherapy versus flutamide plus goserelin in
prostate cancer patients: results of an Italian Prostate Cancer Project study. J Clin Oncol
1999;17: 2027
-38.
35 Dawson NA, Conaway M, Halabi S, Winer EP, Small EJ, Lake D, et al. A randomized study comparing standard versus moderately high dose megestrol acetate for patients with advanced prostate carcinoma: cancer and leukemia group B study 9181. Cancer 2000; 88: 825 -34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
36 Fields-Jones S, Koletsky A, Wilding G, O'Rourke M, O'Rourke T,
Eckardt J, et al. Improvements in clinical benefit with vinorelbine in the
treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a phase II trial. Ann
Oncol 1999;10: 1307
-10.
37 Kantoff PW, Halabi S, Conaway M, Picus J, Kirshner J, Hars V, et
al. Hydrocortisone with or without mitoxantrone in men with hormone-refractory
prostate cancer: results of the cancer and leukemia group B 9182 study. J Clin Oncol
1999;17: 2506
-13.
38 Small EJ, Meyer M, Marshall ME, Reyno LM, Meyers FJ, Natale RB, et
al. Suramin therapy for patients with symptomatic hormone-refractory prostate
cancer: results of a randomized phase III trial comparing suramin plus
hydrocortisone to placebo plus hydrocortisone. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1440
-50.
39 Smith DC, Esper P, Strawderman M, Redman B, Pienta KJ. Phase II
trial of oral estramustine, oral etoposide, and intravenous paclitaxel in
hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1664
-71.
40 Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, Ashton CM, Giesler RB, Byrne MM, et al. A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care 2000;38: 1040 -50.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
41 van Andel G, Kurth KH, Rietbroek RL, van De Velde-Muusers JA. Quality of life assessment in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer treated with epirubicin or with epirubicin plus medroxy progesterone acetate—is it feasible? Eur Urol 2000; 38: 259 -64.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
42 Brandeis JM, Litwin MS, Burnison CM, Reiter RE. Quality of life outcomes after brachytherapy for early stage prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;163: 851 -7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
43 Janda M, Gerstner N, Obermair A, Fuerst A, Wachter S, Dieckmann K, et al. Quality of life changes during conformal radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2000;89: 1322 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
44 Litwin MS, Flanders SC, Pasta DJ, Stoddard ML, Lubeck DP, Henning JM. Sexual function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: multivariate quality-of-life analysis from CaPSURE. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology 1999; 54: 503 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
45 Banerjee M, Biswas D, Sakr W, Wood DP. Recursive partitioning for prognostic grouping of patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2000;89: 404 -11.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
46 Meyer F, Bairati I, Shadmani R, Fradet Y, Moore L. Dietary fat and prostate cancer survival. Cancer Causes Control 1999; 10: 245 -51.[ISI][Medline]
47 Allison RR, Schulsinger A, Vongtama V, Grant P, Shin KH, Huben R. If you "watch and wait," prostate cancer may progress dramatically. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 39: 1019 -23.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
48 Austenfeld MS, Thompson IM Jr, Middleton RG. Meta-analysis of the literature: guideline development for prostate cancer treatment. American Urological Association Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel [see comments]. J Urol 1994;152: 1866 -9.[ISI][Medline]
49 Dowling RA, Carrasco CH, Babaian RJ. Percutaneous urinary diversion in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer [see comments]. Urology 1991;37: 89 -91.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
50 Hanks GE, Krall JM, Hanlon AL, Asbell SO, Pilepich MV, Owen JB. Patterns of Care and RTOG studies in prostate cancer: long-term survival, hazard rate observations, and possibilities of cure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;28: 39 -45.[ISI][Medline]
51 Irani J, Goujon JM, Ragni E, Peyrat L, Hubert J, Saint F, et al. High-grade inflammation in prostate cancer as a prognostic factor for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Pathologist Multi Center Study Group. Urology 1999; 54: 467 -72.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
52 Oosterlinck W, Mattelaer J, Casselman J, Van Velthoven R, Derde MP, Kaufman L. PSA evolution: a prognostic factor during treatment of advanced prostatic carcinoma with total androgen blockade. Data from a Belgian multicentric study of 546 patients. Acta Urol Belg 1997; 65: 63 -71.[Medline]
53 Potosky AL, Merrill RM, Riley GF, Taplin SH, Barlow W, Fireman BH, et al. Prostate cancer treatment and ten-year survival among group/staff HMO and fee-for-service Medicare patients. Health Serv Res 1999; 34: 525 -46.[ISI][Medline]
54 Pousette A, Grande M, Carlstrom K, Stege R. Tissue PSA is the best predicting variable for the outcome of endocrine treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 1999; 229: 27 -32.[CrossRef][Medline]
55 Rana A, Chisholm GD, Christodoulou S, McIntyre MA, Elton RA. Audit and its impact in the management of early prostatic cancer Br J Urol 1993;71: 721 -7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][published erratum appears in Br J Urol 1993 Nov;72(5 Pt 1): 682 ].
56 Jonler M, Ritter MA, Brinkmann R, Messing EM, Rhodes PR, Bruskewitz RC. Sequelae of definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer localized to the pelvis. Urology 1994; 44: 876 -82.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
57 Jonler M, Nielsen OS, Wolf H. Urinary symptoms, potency, and quality of life in patients with localized prostate cancer followed up with deferred treatment. Urology 1998; 52: 1055-62; discussion 63.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
58 Iversen P, Tyrrell CJ, Kaisary AV, Anderson JB, Baert L, Tammela T, et al. Casodex (bicalutamide) 150-mg monotherapy compared with castration in patients with previously untreated nonmetastatic prostate cancer: results from two multicenter randomized trials at a median follow-up of 4 years. Urology 1998;51: 389 -96.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
59 Lim AJ, Brandon AH, Fiedler J, Brickman AL, Boyer CI, Raub WA Jr, et al. Quality of life: radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer [see comments]. J Urol 1995; 154: 1420 -5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
60 McCammon KA, Kolm P, Main B, Schellhammer PF. Comparative quality-of-life analysis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation for localized prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 54: 509 -16.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
61 Perrotte P, Litwin MS, McGuire EJ, Scott SM, von Eschenbach AC, Pisters LL. Quality of life after salvage cryotherapy: the impact of treatment parameters [see comments]. J Urol 1999; 162: 398 -402.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
62 Rossetti SR, Terrone C. Quality of life in prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 1996; 30(1 Suppl): 44 -8.[Medline]
63 Arai Y, Okubo K, Aoki Y, Maekawa S, Okada T, Maeda H, et al. Patient-reported quality of life after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 1999;6: 78 -86.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
64 Arterbery VE, Frazier A, Dalmia P, Siefer J, Lutz M, Porter A. Quality of life after permanent prostate implant. Semin Surg Oncol 1997;13: 461 -4.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
65 Larson G, Pappas N, Hassoun B. Prostate cancer treatment with ultrasound-guided transperineal brachytherapy: analysis of the treatment results of our first 150 patients. J Okla State Med Assoc 2000; 93: 391 -6.[Medline]
66 Benoit RM, Cohen JK, Miller RJ Jr. Comparison of the hospital costs for radical prostatectomy and cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. Urology 1998;52: 820 -4.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
67 Bloomfield DJ, Krahn MD, Neogi T, Panzarella T, Smith TJ, Warde P, et al. Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: based on a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2272 -9.[Abstract]
68 Chon JK, Jacobs SC, Naslund MJ. The cost value of medical versus surgical hormonal therapy for metastatic prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164: 735 -7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
69 Ciezki JP, Klein EA, Angermeier KW, Ulchaker J, Zippe CD, Wilkinson DA. Cost comparison of radical prostatectomy and transperineal brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 2000; 55: 68 -72.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
70 Holmberg H, Carlsson P, Kalman D, Varenhorst E. Impact on health service costs of medical technologies used in management of prostatic cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1998; 32: 195 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
71 Holmberg H, Carlsson P, Lofman O, Varenhorst E. Economic evaluation of screening for prostate cancer: a randomized population based programme during a 10-year period in Sweden. Health Policy 1998; 45: 133 -47.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
72 Krahn MD, Mahoney JE, Eckman MH, Trachtenberg J, Pauker SG, Detsky AS. Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view [see comments]. JAMA 1994;272: 773 -80.[Abstract]
73 Krahn MD, Coombs A, Levy IG. Current and projected annual direct costs of screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen. CMAJ 1999; 160: 49 -57.[Abstract]
74 Malmberg I, Persson U, Ask A, Tennvall J, Abrahamsson PA. Painful bone metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer: economic costs of strontium-89 and/or external radiotherapy. Urology 1997; 50: 747 -53.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
75 Mushinski M. Average charges for a radical prostatectomy and a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): geographic variations, 1994. Stat Bull Metrop Insur Co 1996; 77: 19 -27.[Medline]
76 Nicol DL, Heathcote PS, Kateley GD, Lloyd S. Advanced prostate cancer. The role of high priced hormone therapy. Med J Aust 1993; 159: 16 -9.[ISI][Medline]
77 Ullman M, Metzger CK, Kuzel T, Bennett CL. Performance measurement in prostate cancer care: beyond report cards. Urology 1996; 47: 356 -65.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
78 Wolf JS Jr, Cher M, Dall'era M, Presti JC Jr, Hricak H, Carroll PR. The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1995; 153: 993 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
79 Beck JR, Kattan MW, Miles BJ. A critique of the decision analysis for clinically localized prostate cancer [see comments]. J Urol 1994; 152: 1894 -9.[ISI][Medline]
80 Bennett CL, Matchar D, McCrory D, McLeod DG, Crawford ED, Hillner BE. Cost-effective models for flutamide for prostate carcinoma patients: are they helpful to policy makers? Cancer 1996; 77: 1854 -61.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
81 Chang P, Friedland GW. The role of imaging in screening for prostate cancer. A decision analysis perspective. Invest Radiol 1990; 25: 591 -5.[ISI][Medline]
82 Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, de La Rosette JJ, Ruijs SH,
Barentsz JO. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision
analytic approach. Radiology 2000; 215: 445
-51.
83 Kobeissi BJ, Gupta M, Perez CA, Dopuch N, Michalski JM, Van Antwerp G, et al. Physician resource utilization in radiation oncology: a model based on management of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;40: 593 -603.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
84 Kramolowsky EV, Wood NL, Rollins KL, Glasheen WP, Nelson CM. The role of the physician in effecting change in hospital charge for radical prostatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180: 513 -8.[ISI][Medline]
85 Licht MR, Klein EA. Early hospital discharge after radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact on cost and complication rate. Urology 1994;44: 700 -4.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
86 Taplin SH, Barlow W, Urban N, Mandelson MT, Timlin DJ, Ichikawa L,
et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and
breast cancer care [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 417
-26.
87 Beemsterboer PM, de Koning HJ, Birnie E, van der Maas PJ, Schroder FH. Advanced prostate cancer: course, care, and cost implications. Prostate 1999;40: 97 -104.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
88 Albertsen PC, Nease RF Jr, Potosky AL. Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer [see comments]. J Urol 1998;159: 158 -63.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
89 Kattan MW, Cowen ME, Miles BJ. A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer [see comments]. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12: 299 -305.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
90 Cantor SB, Spann SJ, Volk RJ, Cardenas MP, Warren MM. Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis [see comments]. J Fam Pract 1995;41: 33 -41.[ISI][Medline]
91 Cowen ME, Miles BJ, Cahill DF, Giesler RB, Beck JR, Kattan MW. The
danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment
of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis
Making 1998;18: 376
-80.
92 Mazur DJ, Merz JF. Older patients' willingness to trade off urologic adverse outcomes for a better chance at five-year survival in the clinical setting of prostate cancer [see comments]. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995;43: 979 -84.[ISI][Medline]
93 Mazur DJ, Merz JF. How older patients' treatment preferences are influenced by disclosures about therapeutic uncertainty: surgery versus expectant management for localized prostate cancer. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996;44: 934 -7.[ISI][Medline]
94 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 [see comments]. J Fam Pract 1992; 34: 561 -8.[ISI][Medline]
95 Singer PA, Tasch ES, Stocking C, Rubin S, Siegler M, Weichselbaum R. Sex or survival: trade-offs between quality and quantity of life. J Clin Oncol 1991;9: 328 -34.[Abstract]
96 Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Spann SJ, Cass AR, Cardenas MP, Warren MM. Preferences of husbands and wives for prostate cancer screening [see comments]. Arch Fam Med 1997; 6: 72 -6.[Abstract]
97 Zwetsloot-Schonk JH, Leer JW. Decision analysis—a helpful tool for clinicians to establish diagnostic-therapeutic guidelines? Acta Oncol 1993;32: 379 -91.[ISI][Medline]
98 Bennett CL, Chapman G, Elstein AS, Knight SJ, Nadler RB, Sharifi R, et al. A comparison of perspectives on prostate cancer: analysis of utility assessments of patients and physicians. Eur Urol 1997; 32(3 Suppl): 86 -8.[ISI][Medline]
99 Yoshimura N, Takami N, Ogawa O, Kakehi Y, Okada Y, Fukui T, et al. Decision analysis for treatment of early stage prostate cancer. Jpn J Cancer Res 1998;89: 681 -9.[CrossRef][ISI]
100 Aus G, Hermansson CG, Hugosson J, Pedersen KV. Transrectal ultrasound examination of the prostate: complications and acceptance by patients. Br J Urol 1993; 71: 457 -9.[ISI][Medline]
101 Akakura K, Isaka S, Akimoto S, Ito H, Okada K, Hachiya T, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial for the treatment of Stages B2 and C prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiation therapy with a common endocrine therapy in both modalities. Urology 1999; 54: 313 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
102 Albertsen PC, Aaronson NK, Muller MJ, Keller SD, Ware JE Jr. Health-related quality of life among patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 1997;49: 207 -16.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
103 Bates TS, Wright MP, Gillatt DA. Prevalence and impact of incontinence and impotence following total prostatecto