1842676957299765Latent class cluster analysis to understand heterogeneity in prostate cancer treatment utilities

BackgroundMen 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionMost 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.

[1]  Ruth Etzioni,et al.  Estimating Lead Time and Overdiagnosis Associated with PSA Screening from Prostate Cancer Incidence Trends , 2008, Biometrics.

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[3]  D. Rubin,et al.  Testing the number of components in a normal mixture , 2001 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[5]  C. Stocking,et al.  Sex or survival: trade-offs between quality and quantity of life. , 1991, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  W. Catalona,et al.  Patient preferences for outcomes associated with surgical management of prostate cancer. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[7]  M. Diefenbach,et al.  Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Program , 1999 .

[8]  B. Muthén,et al.  Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. , 2000, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[9]  J. Merz,et al.  Older Patients' Willingness to Trade Off Urologic Adverse Outcomes for a Better Chance at Five‐Year Survival in the Clinical Setting of Prostate Cancer , 1995, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[10]  Hein Putter,et al.  Joint analysis of multiple longitudinal outcomes: Application of a latent class model , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  D. Lubeck,et al.  A review of measurement of patient preferences for treatment outcomes after prostate cancer. , 2002, Urology.

[12]  J. Vermunt,et al.  Latent class cluster analysis , 2002 .

[13]  J. Eastham Active surveillance for prostate cancer with selective delayed definitive therapy. , 2005, Clinical prostate cancer.

[14]  G. Chapman,et al.  Ethnic variation in localized prostate cancer: a pilot study of preferences, optimism, and quality of life among black and white veterans. , 2004, Clinical prostate cancer.

[15]  G. Torrance Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. , 2006, PharmacoEconomics.

[16]  M. Wolf,et al.  Patient preferences in prostate cancer: a clinician's guide to understanding health utilities. , 2005, Clinical prostate cancer.

[17]  A. McCutcheon,et al.  Latent Class Analysis , 2021, Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders.

[18]  J. Gornbein,et al.  Predictors of utilities for health states in early stage prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[19]  Karen E Bremner,et al.  A Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utilities , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[20]  M. Diefenbach,et al.  Prostate cancer risk assessment program. A model for the early detection of prostate cancer. , 1999, Oncology.

[21]  Susan T. Stewart,et al.  Utilities For Prostate Cancer Health States in Men Aged 60 and Older , 2005, Medical care.

[22]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[23]  A. Godwin,et al.  Prostate cancer risk assessment program: a 10-year update of cancer detection. , 2007, The Journal of urology.