Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine (대한예방의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Estimation of Utility Weights for Prostate-related Health States in Korea

  • Kim, Seon-Ha (Department of Nursing, Dankook University) ;
  • Ock, Minsu (Department of Preventive Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Jo, Min-Woo (Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Sungchan (Department of Urology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2021.07.29
  • Accepted : 2021.12.10
  • Published : 2022.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Very limited previous research has investigated the utility weights of prostate-related diseases in the general population in Korea. The purpose of this study was to calculate the utility of prostate-related health states in the Korean general public using the standard gamble (SG) method. Methods: Seven health states for hypothetical prostate cancers, 1 for benign prostate hyperplasia, and 1 for erectile dysfunction were developed based on patient education material and previous publications. In total, 460 responses from the Korean general population were used to analyze the utility of prostate-related health states. Computer-assisted personal interviews were conducted, and utility values were measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and SG. Mean utility values were calculated for each prostate-related health state. Results: The mean utility values of prostate cancer derived from SG ranged from 0.281 (metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer) to 0.779 (localized prostate cancer requiring prostatectomy). The utility value of benign prostate hyperplasia was 0.871, and that of erectile dysfunction was 0.812. The utility values obtained using the SG method in all conditions were higher than the values obtained by VAS. There were no significant demographic variables affecting utility values in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Our findings might be useful for economic evaluation and utility calculation of screening and interventions for prostate-related conditions in the general population.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant from the National R & D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (No. 1520140).

References

  1. Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, Cronin KA, Ma J, Ryerson B, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2014, featuring survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017;109(9):djx030.
  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59(4):225-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20006
  3. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012;61(6):1079-1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054
  4. Won YJ, Jung KW, Oh CM, Park EH, Kong HJ, Lee DH, et al. Geographical variations and trends in major cancer incidences throughout Korea during 1999-2013. Cancer Res Treat 2018;50(4):1281-1293. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.411
  5. Kimura T, Egawa S. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Asian countries. Int J Urol 2018;25(6):524-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13593
  6. Cronin KA, Lake AJ, Scott S, Sherman RL, Noone AM, Howlader N, et al, Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part I: national cancer statistics. Cancer 2018;124(13):2785-2800. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31551
  7. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Lee ES; Community of Population-Based Regional Cancer Registries. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2015. Cancer Res Treat 2018;50(2):303-316. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.143
  8. Lee KS, Chang HS, Lee SM, Park EC. Economic burden of cancer in Korea during 2000-2010. Cancer Res Treat 2015;47(3):387-398. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.001
  9. Lee YJ, Lee JW, Park J, Seo SI, Chung JI, Yoo TK, et al. Nationwide incidence and treatment pattern of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Korea. Investig Clin Urol 2016;57(6):424-430. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.6.424
  10. Robert G, De La Taille A, Descazeaud A. Epidemiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prog Urol 2018;28(15):803-812 (French). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2018.08.005
  11. Park HJ, Won JE, Sorsaburu S, Rivera PD, Lee SW. Urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and LUTS/BPH with erectile dysfunction in Asian men: a systematic review focusing on tadalafil. World J Mens Health 2013;31(3):193-207. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.2013.31.3.193
  12. Roehrborn CG, Egan KB, Miner MM, Ni X, Wong DG, Rosen RC. Erectile dysfunction and lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) combined responders to tadalafil after 12 weeks of treatment. BJU Int 2016;118(1):153-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13406
  13. Glina S, Santana AW, Azank F, Mello LF, Moreira ED Jr. Lower urinary tract symptoms and erectile dysfunction are highly prevalent in ageing men. BJU Int 2006;97(4):763-765. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.06008.x
  14. Morant S, Bloomfield G, Vats V, Chapple C. Increased sexual dysfunction in men with storage and voiding lower urinary tract symptoms. J Sex Med 2009;6(4):1103-1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01120.x
  15. Rosen RC, Wei JT, Althof SE, Seftel AD, Miner M, Perelman MA, et al. Association of sexual dysfunction with lower urinary tract symptoms of BPH and BPH medical therapies: results from the BPH Registry. Urology 2009;73(3):562-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.034
  16. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996;15(2):209-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(95)00038-0
  17. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 2010;96:5-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033
  18. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005, p. 147-173.
  19. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 1976;10(3):129-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(76)90036-7
  20. Wee HL, Li SC, Xie F, Zhang XH, Luo N, Feeny D, et al. Validity, feasibility and acceptability of time trade-off and standard gamble assessments in health valuation studies: a study in a multiethnic Asian population in Singapore. Value Health 2008;11 Suppl 1:S3-S10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00361.x
  21. Kim SH, Lee SI, Jo MW. Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population. Qual Life Res 2017;26(12):3387-3397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1676-4
  22. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ 1997;16(2):155-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00509-7
  23. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5(1):1-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2
  24. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001;21(4):329-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100408
  25. Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SM, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2007;27(3):288-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07300604
  26. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health 2009;12(8):1194-1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00581.x
  27. Wittenberg E, Halpern E, Divi N, Prosser LA, Araki SS, Weeks JC. The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states. Qual Life Res 2006;15(4):645-653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-3514-3
  28. Kim Y, Hwang JS, Ahn J, Lee SM, Lee YJ, Shin S. Utilities for prostate cancer by cancer stage and treatment step in Korea. Korean J Health Econ Policy 2013;19(2):1-20 (Korean).
  29. Kim SH, Jo MW, Ock M, Lee HJ, Lee JW. Estimation of health state utilities in breast cancer. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017;11:531-536. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S129856
  30. Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, Sculpher M. Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions; 2010 [cited 2021 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/rp54_appropriate_perspectives_for_health_care_decisions.pdf.
  31. Jo MW, Kwon DS, Kim SH, Kil SR, Lee SI. Validity and reliability of Korean EQ-5D valuation study using a computer-assisted standard gamble method. Korean J Health Promot 2010;10(3):105-112 (Korean).
  32. Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, Tomlinson G, Bremner KE, Bezjak A, et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med Care 2003;41(1):153-164. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200301000-00017
  33. Gries KS, Regier DA, Ramsey SD, Patrick DL. Utility estimates of disease-specific health states in prostate cancer from three different perspectives. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017;15(3):375-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0282-x
  34. Torvinen S, Farkkila N, Sintonen H, Saarto T, Roine RP, Taari K. Health-related quality of life in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2013;52(6):1094-1101. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2012.760848
  35. Bergius S, Torvinen S, Muhonen T, Roine RP, Sintonen H, Taari K. Health-related quality of life among prostate cancer patients: real-life situation at the beginning of treatment. Scand J Urol 2017;51(1):13-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2016.1247293
  36. Krahn MD, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, Naglie G. Utility and health-related quality of life in prostate cancer patients 12 months after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009;12(4):361-368. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2009.32
  37. Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Quality-of-life utility values for erectile function and sildenafil treatment. Clin Drug Investig 2005;25(2):99-105. https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200525020-00002
  38. Postulart D, Adang EM. Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making 2000;20(2):186-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0002000204
  39. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 2007;45(3):259-263. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81
  40. Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol 2002;12(2):160-178. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.12.160