Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Health utility and health-related quality of life of Japanese prostate cancer patients according to progression status measured using EQ-5D-5L and FACT-P

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To obtain health utility data to allow for cost-effectiveness analysis in groups stratified by disease progression along with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) information in Japanese prostate cancer (PC) patients.

Methods

In this cross-sectional observational study, EuroQol-5 Dimension- 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L), EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) measures were used to examine utility, VAS scores, and disease-specific HRQoL, respectively. Scores obtained were statistically examined for the correlation among measures and domains. Parameter estimates of statistically significant factors were assessed using generalized linear models (GLM).

Results

A total of 380 patients stratified by their disease progression status were analyzed. The numbers (%) of patients in groups stratified as having localized (L), localized progression (LP), distant metastatic (DM), and DM-castration-resistant PC (CRPC) were 275 (72.4), 40 (10.5), 27 (7.1), and 38 (10.0), respectively. EQ-5D-5L mean (standard deviation, SD) scores of L, LP, DM, and DM-CRPC in study participants were 0.87 (0.15), 0.86 (0.15), 0.85 (0.18), and 0.84 (0.17), respectively. The mean (SD) scores assessed by EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, and FACT-P instruments were 0.86 (0.16), 74.6 (16.8), and 110.8 (19.6), respectively. Utility scores correlated well with FACT-P scores. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had significant influences on all instruments’ scores.

Conclusions

We obtained health utility and HRQoL scores of Japanese PC patients stratified by disease progression in detail. Our results will be useful for establishing cost-effectiveness analyses in Japanese PC settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hori, M., Matsuda, T., Shibata, A., Katanoda, K., Sobue, T., & Nishimoto, H. (2015). Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2009: A study of 32 population-based cancer registries for the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 45(9), 884–891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kakehi, Y., Sugimoto, M., & Taoka, R. (2017). Evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer (summary: Japanese Urological Association, 2016 edition). International Journal of Urology, 24(9), 648–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., & Takura, T. (2017). New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations. Health Policy, 121(8), 836–841.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., Takura, T., & Moriwaki, K. (2017). Development of an Official Guideline for the Economic Evaluation of Drugs/Medical Devices in Japan. Value in Health, 20(3), 372–378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shimizu, F., Fujino, K., Ito, Y. M., Fukuda, T., Kawachi, Y., Minowada, S., et al. (2008). Factors associated with variation in utility scores among patients with prostate cancer. Value in Health, 11(7), 1190–1193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Namiki, S., Ishidoya, S., Saito, S., Mitsukawa, S., Suzuki, Y., Numata, I., et al. (2008). Quality of life following endocrine therapy for advanced prostate cancer: A comparative study between LH-RH agonist 1-month depot and 3-month depot. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi, 99(5), 631–637. (in Japanese).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Akakura, K., Matsuzaki, K., Kobayashi, T., Kitoh, H., Mizoguchi, K., Tomikawa, G., et al. (2011). Evaluation of utility index of quality of life (QOL) in prostate cancer patients: Comparison of QOL utility index EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and visual analogue scale (VAS) with health-related QOL questionnaires SF-36 and EPIC. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi, 102(1), 9–13. (in Japanese).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berger, M. L., Bingefors, K., Hedblom, E. C., Pashos, C. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2003). Health care cost, quality and outcomes: ISPOR Book of Terms. Lawrenceville, NJ: ISPOR.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G., & Torrance, G. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fujimura, T., Takahashi, S., Kume, H., Takeuchi, T., Kitamura, T., & Homma, Y. (2009). Cancer-related pain and quality of life in prostate cancer patients: assessment using the Functional Assessment of Prostate Cancer Therapy. Internaltional Journal of Urology, 16(5), 522–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Peters, M. L., de Meijer, C., Wyndaele, D., Noordzij, W., Leliveld-Kors, A. M., van den Bosch, J., et al. (2018). Dutch economic value of radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 16(1), 133–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan, S. H., Abrams, K. R., & Bujkiewicz, S. (2018). Bayesian multiparameter evidence synthesis to inform decision making: A case study in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Medical Decision Making, 38(7), 834–848.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Collins, R., Fenwick, E., Trowman, R., Perard, R., Norman, G., Light, K., et al. (2007). A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Health Technology Assessment, 11(2), iii–iv, xv–xviii, 1–179.

  14. Boyd, K. A., Jones, R. J., Paul, J., Birrell, F., Briggs, A. H., & Leung, H. Y. (2015). Decision analytic cost-effectiveness model to compare prostate cryotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy for treatment of radiation recurrent prostate cancer. British Medical Journal Open, 5(10), e007925.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zemplenyi, A. T., Kalo, Z., Kovacs, G., Farkas, R., Beothe, T., Banyai, D., et al. (2018). Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with normal and hypofractionated schemes for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care, 27(1), e12430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Loeb, S., Zhou, Q., Siebert, U., Rochau, U., Jahn, B., Muhlberger, N., et al. (2017). Active surveillance versus watchful waiting for localized prostate cancer: A model to inform decisions. European Urology, 72(6), 899–907.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Helou, J., Torres, S., Musunuru, H. B., Raphael, J., Cheung, P., Vesprini, D., et al. (2017). Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus low dose rate brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer: A cost-utility analysis. Clinical Oncology, 29(11), 718–731.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., et al. (2012). State-transition modeling: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Value in Health, 15(6), 812–820.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brooks, R., & EuroQol Group. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cabasés, J. (2014). Chapter 1 Introduction. In A. Szende, B. Janssen, & J. Cabases (Eds.), Self-reported population health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D (pp. 1–6). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Feng, Y., Herdman, M., van Nooten, F., Cleeland, C., Parkin, D., Ikeda, S., et al. (2017). An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2067–2078.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ikeda, S., Shiroiwa, T., Igarashi, A., Noto, S., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., et al. (2015). Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. Journal of the National Institute of Public Health, 64(1), 47–55. (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

  24. van Reenen, M., & Janssen, B. (2015). EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. EuroQol Research Foundation. Accessed October 13, 2018, from. https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-5L_UserGuide_2015.pdf.

  25. Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. D’Amico, A. V., Whittington, R., Malkowicz, S. B., Schultz, D., Blank, K., Broderick, G. A., et al. (1998). Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Journals of the American Medical Association, 280(11), 969–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kitagawa, Y., Izumi, K., Sawada, K., Mizokami, A., Nakashima, K., Koshida, K., et al. (2014). Age-specific reference range of prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer detection in population-based screening cohort in Japan: verification of Japanese Urological Association Guideline for prostate cancer. International Journal of Urology, 21(11), 1120–1125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oken, M. M., Creech, R. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kelly, C. M., & Shahrokni, A. (2016). Moving beyond Karnofsky and ECOG Performance Status Assessments with New Technologies. Journal of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6186543.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Yamada, T., Morita, T., Maeda, I., Inoue, S., Ikenaga, M., Matsumoto, Y., et al. (2017). A prospective, multicenter cohort study to validate a simple performance status-based survival prediction system for oncologists. Cancer, 123(8), 1442–1452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute (1999). Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Accessed 2 September, 2018, from http://www.jcog.jp/doctor/tool/ctcaev4.html (in Japanese).

  32. Konnopka, A., & Koenig, H. H. (2017). The “no problems”-problem: An empirical analysis of ceiling effects on the EQ-5D 5L. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2079–2084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cella, D., Petrylak, D. P., Fishman, M., Teigland, C., Young, J., & Mulani, P. (2006). Role of quality of life in men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: How does atrasentan influence quality of life? European Urology, 49(5), 781–789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Torvinen, S., Bergius, S., Roine, R., Lodenius, L., Sintonen, H., & Taari, K. (2016). Use of patient assessed health-related quality of life instruments in prostate cancer research: A systematic review of the literature 2002–15. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 32(3), 97–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cheung, Y. B., Luo, N., Ng, R., & Lee, C. F. (2014). Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0180-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Shimozuma, K., Kuranami, M., Suemasu, K., Ohashi, Y., et al. (2011). Comparison of EQ-5D scores among anthracycline-containing regimens followed by taxane and taxane-only regimens for node-positive breast cancer patients after surgery: The N-SAS BC 02 trial. Value in Health, 14(5), 746–751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Adamowicz, K. (2017). Assessment of quality of life in advanced, metastatic prostate cancer: An overview of randomized phase III trials. Quality of Life Research, 26(4), 813–822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the assistance of many facilities and individuals who cooperated with our research. We are especially grateful to Dr. Ichiro Arakawa, the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Science, Teikyo Heisei University, for his advice on statistical analysis. We are also grateful to Mr. Yuma Takeda, and Ms. Saori Uchikawa, a graduate, and a student, respectively, from the Faculty of Life Sciences, Ritsumaikan University, who helped to prepare the questionnaire and data input. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) Grant Numbers JP26293116 and JP16K08894.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Life Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan

    Hideki Murasawa & Kojiro Shimozuma

  2. Department of Urology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan

    Takayuki Sugiyama

  3. Department of Urology, Faculty of medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan

    Yuki Matsuoka & Mikio Sugimoto

  4. Department of Uro-Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama, Japan

    Takashi Okabe & Masafumi Oyama

  5. Department of Urology, Juntendo University, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Amiko Hino & Shigeo Horie

  6. Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan

    Nobumichi Tanaka & Kiyohide Fujimoto

  7. Department of Health Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan

    Shinichi Noto

Authors
  1. Hideki Murasawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takayuki Sugiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuki Matsuoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takashi Okabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amiko Hino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nobumichi Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mikio Sugimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masafumi Oyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kiyohide Fujimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Shigeo Horie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Shinichi Noto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Kojiro Shimozuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideki Murasawa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murasawa, H., Sugiyama, T., Matsuoka, Y. et al. Health utility and health-related quality of life of Japanese prostate cancer patients according to progression status measured using EQ-5D-5L and FACT-P. Qual Life Res 28, 2383–2391 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02184-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02184-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation