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

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)

[1]  P. Schellhammer,et al.  Results of radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1996, JAMA.

[2]  R. Thisted,et al.  Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  M. Angell.  Patients' preferences in randomized clinical trials. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  J. Beck,et al.  A critique of the decision analysis for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[5]  L. Goldman,et al.  Expected Gains in Life Expectancy From Various Coronary Heart Disease Risk Factor Modifications , 1991, Circulation.

[6]  S G Pauker,et al.  The amniocentesis decision: ten years of decision analytic experience. , 1987, Birth defects original article series.

[7]  M. Weinstein,et al.  The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1996, JAMA.

[8]  P. Albertsen,et al.  A 72-year-old man with localized prostate cancer. , 1995 .

[9]  G W Torrance,et al.  A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. , 1972, Health services research.

[10]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Clinical Decision Analysis , 1980 .

[11]  J A Smith,et al.  Results of radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1996, JAMA.

[12]  S G Pauker,et al.  Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view. , 1994, JAMA.

[13]  Ruth Etzioni,et al.  Prostate cancer and computer models: Background, limitations, and potential. , 1996, Urologic oncology.

[14]  L Eeckhoudt.  Expected Utility Theory—Is It Normative or Simply "Practical"? , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  J. Kassirer,et al.  Decision analysis: a progress report. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[16]  D. Fryback,et al.  Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. , 1995, JAMA.

[17]  S G Pauker,et al.  The toss-up. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  R. Kane,et al.  Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--II: Scaling methods. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  J D Habbema,et al.  The "utility" of the Time Trade-Off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional Trade-Off. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  J Baron,et al.  Why Expected Utility Theory Is Normative, but Not Prescriptive , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[21]  J P Kassirer,et al.  Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  G. Chodak.  Screening for Prostate Cancer: The Debate Continues , 1994 .

[23]  R. Deber,et al.  Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis , 1990, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[24]  B. McNeil,et al.  Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  J Douard.  Is Risk Neutrality Rational? , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[26]  Brian J. Miles,et al.  A Decision Analysis for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer , 1997 .

[27]  S. Cantor,et al.  Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis. , 1995, The Journal of family practice.

[28]  J. Melia,et al.  Screening for Prostate Cancer , 1996 .

[29]  G Wu,et al.  The Strengths and Limitations of Expected Utility Theory , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[30]  D R Holtgrave,et al.  The evaluation and treatment of men with asymptomatic prostate nodules in primary care: a decision analysis. , 1992, The Journal of family practice.

[31]  B. McNeil,et al.  Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Monte Carlo Simulation , 1985, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  A S Detsky,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. VII: How to use a clinical decision analysis : a are the results of the study valid ? , 1995 .

[33]  B J Cohen,et al.  Is Expected Utility Theory Normative for Medical Decision Making? , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[34]  P. Walsh,et al.  A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1993, The Journal of urology.