Mapping expanded prostate cancer index composite to EQ5D utilities to inform economic evaluations in prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is the most commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials, but health utilities associated with the different health states assessed with this tool are unknown, limiting our ability to perform cost-utility analyses. This study aimed to map EPIC tool to EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ5D) to generate EQ5D health utilities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, conducted between 04/2006 and 12/2009 at cancer centers across the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. Eligible patients included men >18 years with a known diagnosis of low-risk PC. Patient HRQoL data were collected using EPIC and health utilities were obtained using EQ5D. Data were divided into an estimation sample (n = 765, 70%) and a validation sample (n = 327, 30%). The mapping algorithms that capture the relationship between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and two-part models. Five-fold cross-validation (in-sample) was used to compare the predictive performance of the estimated models. Final models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: A total of 565 patients in the estimation sample had complete information on both EPIC and EQ5D questionnaires at baseline. Mean observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 (range: 0.28-1) with 55% of patients in full health. OLS models outperformed their counterpart Tobit and two-part models for all pre-determined model specifications. The best model fit was: "EQ5D utility = 0.248541 + 0.000748*(Urinary Function) + 0.001134*(Urinary Bother) + 0.000968*(Hormonal Function) + 0.004404*(Hormonal Bother)- 0.376487*(Zubrod) + 0.003562*(Urinary Function*Zubrod)"; RMSE was 0.10462. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify a comprehensive set of mapping algorithms to generate EQ5D utilities from EPIC domain/ sub-domain scores. The study results will help estimate quality-adjusted life-years in PC economic evaluations.

Preliminary patient-reported outcomes analysis of 3-dimensional radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 prostate cancer trial.

BACKGROUND: The authors analyzed a preliminary report of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among men who received high-dose radiation therapy (RT) on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study 0126 (a phase 3 dose-escalation trial) with either 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). METHODS: Patients in the 3D-CRT group received 55.8 gray (Gy) to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles and were allowed an optional field reduction; then, they received 23.4 Gy to the prostate only. Patients in the IMRT group received 79.2 Gy to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles. PROs were assessed at 0 months (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months and included bladder and bowel function assessed with the Functional Alterations due to Changes in Elimination (FACE) instrument and erectile function assessed with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Analyses included the patients who completed all data at baseline and for at least 1 follow-up assessment, and the results were compared with an imputed data set. RESULTS: Of 763 patients who were randomized to the 79.2-Gy arm, 551 patients and 595 patients who responded to the FACE instrument and 505 patients and 577 patients who responded to the IIEF were included in the completed and imputed analyses, respectively. There were no significant differences between modalities for any of the FACE or IIEF subscale scores or total scores at any time point for either the completed data set or the imputed data set. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant reductions in dose and volume to normal structures using IMRT, this robust analysis of 3D-CRT and IMRT demonstrated no difference in patient-reported bowel, bladder, or sexual functions for similar doses delivered to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles with IMRT compared with 3D-CRT delivered either to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles or to the prostate alone.

Prospective preference assessment of patients' willingness to participate in a randomized controlled trial of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate patients' willingness to participate (WTP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We undertook a qualitative research study in which we prospectively enrolled patients with clinically localized PCa. We used purposive sampling to ensure a diverse sample based on age, race, travel distance, and physician. Patients participated in a semi-structured interview in which they reviewed a description of a hypothetical RCT, were asked open-ended and focused follow-up questions regarding their motivations for and concerns about enrollment, and completed a questionnaire assessing characteristics such as demographics and prior knowledge of IMRT or PBT. Patients' stated WTP was assessed using a 6-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-six eligible patients (33 white, 13 black) were enrolled from the practices of eight physicians. We identified 21 factors that impacted patients' WTP, which largely centered on five major themes: altruism/desire to compare treatments, randomization, deference to physician opinion, financial incentives, and time demands/scheduling. Most patients (27 of 46, 59%) stated they would either "definitely" or "probably" participate. Seventeen percent (8 of 46) stated they would "definitely not" or "probably not" enroll, most of whom (6 of 8) preferred PBT before their physician visit. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients indicated high WTP in a RCT comparing IMRT and PBT for PCa.