The Danger of Applying Group-level Utilities in Decision Analyses of the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer in Individual Patients
- 1 October 1998
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Medical Decision Making
- Vol. 18 (4) , 376-380
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9801800404
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)Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Expected Utility Theory—Is It Normative or Simply "Practical"?Medical Decision Making, 1996
- Is Risk Neutrality Rational?Medical Decision Making, 1996
- The Strengths and Limitations of Expected Utility TheoryMedical Decision Making, 1996
- The “utility” of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: Feasibility and proportional trade-offJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision AnalysisMedical Decision Making, 1990
- Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: Scaling methodsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1989
- Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Monte Carlo SimulationMedical Decision Making, 1985
- Patients’ Preferences in Randomized Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1984
- The Toss-upNew England Journal of Medicine, 1981
- Fallacy of the Five-Year Survival in Lung CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1978