Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 May 27;4(1):2381468319852332.
doi: 10.1177/2381468319852332. eCollection 2019 Jan-Jun.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utility Values of Patients and Partners Between 2007 and 2016

Anne Magnus  1 , Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai  2 , Cathrine Mihalopoulos  1 , Victoria Brown  1 , Rob Carter  1
Affiliations
Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utility Values of Patients and Partners Between 2007 and 2016

Anne Magnus et al. MDM Policy Pract. .

Abstract

Background. There is widespread agreement that both the length and quality of life matter when assessing new technologies and/or models of care in the treatment for cancer patients. Quality of life for partners/carers also matters, particularly for prostate cancer. Purpose. This systematic review aims to provide up-to-date utility values along the prostate cancer care continuum (i.e., from prescreening through to palliative care) for use where future trial-based or modelled economic evaluations cannot collect primary data from men and/or partners. Data Sources. A protocol was developed and registered on the international register of systematic reviews-PROSPERO. Databases searched included EBSCO Information Services (CINAHL, EconLit, Global Health, HEED, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Embase. Study Selection. Study selection terms included health-related quality of life, prostate cancer, and partners or carers. Data Extraction. The authors identified articles published between 2007 and 2016 that provided health state utility values, with statistical uncertainty, for men with or at risk of prostate cancer and/or their partner/carers. Data Synthesis and Results. Study quality and generalizability of utilities was evaluated and meta-analysis conducted against prespecified criteria. From 906 original articles, 29 recent primary studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We tabulate all the utility values with uncertainty, along with considerable methodological detail and patient population characteristics. Limitations. Utility values pertaining to carers/partners were limited to one study. Conclusions. Studies varied in design, measurement instruments utilized, quality, and generalizability. There is sufficient qualitative and quantitative detail for the reported utility values to be readily incorporated into economic evaluations. More research is needed with carers/partners and with newly developing prostate cancer-specific quality of life tools.

Keywords: carers; economic evaluation; patients; preferences; prostate cancer; quality of life; systematic review; utility values.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search and inclusion process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Studies of men and partners by element of the prostate cancer care continuum.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Study participants by element of the prostate cancer care continuum.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Mathes T, Jacobs E, Morfeld JC, Pieper D. Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations—a comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:371. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stiggelbout AM, de Hayes JC. Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(1):220–30. - PubMed
    1. EuroQoL Research Foundation. EQ-5D instruments [cited November 1, 2016]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/
    1. Assessment of Quality of Life. Available from: https://www.aqol.com.au

LinkOut - more resources