The Danger of Applying Group-level Utilities in Decision Analyses of the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer in Individual Patients

Abstract

The optimal management strategy for men who have localized prostate cancer remains controversial. This study examines the extent to which suggested treatment based on the perspective of a group or society agrees with that derived from individual patients' preferences. A previously published decision analysis for localized prostate cancer was used to suggest the treatment that maximized quality-adjusted life expectancy. Two treatment recommendations were obtained for each patient: the first (group-level) was derived using the mean utilities of the cohort; the second (individual-level) used his own set of utilities. Group-level utilities misrepresented 25-48% of individuals' pref erences depending on the grade of tumor modeled. The best kappa measure achieved between group and individual preferences was 0.11. The average quality-adjusted life years lost due to misrepresentation of preference was as high as 1.7 quality-adjusted life years. Use of aggregated utilities in a group-level decision analysis can ignore the substantial variability at the individual level. Caution is needed when applying a group- level recommendation to the treatment of localized prostate cancer in an individual patient. Key words: decision analysis; utility assessment; prostate cancer; patient pref erences. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:376-380)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fleming C. , Wasson JH , Albertsen PC , et al. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1993;269:2650-8.

Beck JR , Kattan MW , Miles BJ A critique of the decision analysis for clinically localized prostate cancer . J Urol. 1994; 152:1894-9.

Kattan MW , Cowen ME , Miles BJ A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer . J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:299-305.

Chodak GW Screening for prostate cancer. The debate continues. JAMA. 1994;272:813-4.

Albertsen P. A 72-year-old man with localized prostate cancer . JAMA. 1995;274:69-74.

Weinstein MC , Fineberg HV , Elstein AS , et al. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1980:202-3,217.

Kassirer JP Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1895-6.

Deber RB , Goel V. Using explicit decision rules to manage issues of justice, risk, and ethics in decision analysis: when is it not rational to maximize expected utility . Med Decis Making. 1990:10:181-94.

Pauker SP , Pauker SG The amniocentesis decision: ten years of decision analytic experience . Birth Defects: Original Article Series. 1987;23:151-69.

10.

Cantor SB , Spann SJ , Volk RF , Cardenas MP , Warren MM Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis. J Fam Pract. 1995;41:33-41.

11.

Krahn MD , Mahoney JE , Eckman MH , Tractenberg J. , Pauker SG , Detsky AS Screening for prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994; 272:773-80.

12.

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. J Fam Pract. 1992;34:561-8.

13.

McNeil BJ , Weichselbaum R. , Pauker SG Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:1397-401.

14.

Doubilet P. , Begg CB , Weinstein MC , Braun P. , McNeil BJ Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:157-77.

15.

Chodak GW , Thisted RA , Gerber GS , et al. Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:242-8

16.

Gerber GS , Thisted RA , Scardino PT , et al. Results of radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer : multi-institutional analysis. JAMA. 1996;276:615-9.

17.

Albertsen PC , Fryback DG , Storer BE , Kolon TF , Fine J. Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995 ;274:626-31.

18.

Torrance GW , Thomas WH , Sackett DL A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118-33.

19.

Froberg DG , Kane RL Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: Scaling methods . J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459-71.

20.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1994. 114th ed. Table No. 116. Washington, DC, 1994.

21.

Tsevat J. , Weinstein MC , Williams LW , Tosteson Ana , Gold-man L. Expected gains in life expectancy from various coronary heart disease risk factor modifications. Circulation. 1991;83:1194-201.

22.

Naimark D. , Naglie G. , Detsky AS The meaning of life expectancy. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:702-7.

23.

Richardson WS , Detsky AS , for the Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. User's guides to the medical literature. VII. How to use a clinical decision analysis. JAMA. 1995;273: 1292-5

24.

Russell LB , Gold MR , Siegel JE , Daniels N. , Weinstein MC The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1172-7.

25.

Etzioni R. , Thompson IM Prostate cancer and computer models: background, limitations, and potential . Urol Oncol. 1996:2:57-64.

26.

Stiggelbout AM , Kiebert GM , Kievit J. , Leer JW , Habbema Jdf , DeHaes JCJM. The "utility" of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional trade-off. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1207-14.

27.

Cohen BJ Is expected utility theory normative for medical decision making? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:1-6.

28.

Kassirer JP , Moskowitz AJ , Lau J. , Pauker SG Decision analysis : a progress report. Ann Intern Med. 1987 ;106:275-91.

29.

Baron J. Why expected utility theory is normative, but not prescriptive? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:7-9.

30.

Wu G. The strengths and limitations of expected utility theory. Med Decis Making. 1996,16:9-10.

31.

Douard J. Is risk neutrality rational? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:10 -1.

32.

Eeckhoudt L. Expected utility theory-is it normative or simply "practical"? Med Decis Making. 1996 ;16:12-3.

33.

Kassirer JP , Pauker SG The toss-up. N Engl J Med 1981;305: 1467-9.

34.

Angell M. Patient preferences in randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1385-7.