Prostate Cancer Utilities and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

This study is currently recruiting participants.
Verified August 2010 by University of Chicago
Sponsor:
Information provided by:
University of Chicago
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00203918
First received: September 12, 2005
Last updated: August 25, 2010
Last verified: August 2010

September 12, 2005
August 25, 2010
January 2004
January 2012   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Utility scores for treatment outcomes [ Time Frame: 90 days after enrollment ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Patient utility scores (i.e. patient preference weights) are calculated using survery data will determine which prostate cancer treatment would be most cost-effective for each subject. Patients will be contacted by phone and patient records will be reviewed 90 days after the survey has been completed to determine whether this data reflects actual treatment decisions.
Not Provided
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT00203918 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
Anxiety levels [ Time Frame: 90 days after enrollment ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
We will also ask patients questions relating to their anxiety levels concerning the possible diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Prostate Cancer Utilities and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Prostate Cancer Utilities and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The purpose of this study is to help doctors and patients make better decisions about prostate cancer treatment. This research is being done because we do not know how patient preferences for health states related to prostate cancer affect the final treatment decision.

The goal of this project is to incorporate patients' preferences into a previously developed prostate cancer treatment decision-model and to understand the implications for doing so for cost-effectiveness analysis. To do this, it is first necessary to obtain patient utility scores (i.e., patient preference weights). To do this we will perform a survey of patients visiting the urology clinic to undergo prostate biopsies to validate a method of utility assessment, and understand the patients' individual evaluations of treatment-related health studies. We will also ask patients questions relating to their anxiety levels concerning the possible diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Observational
Observational Model: Cohort
Time Perspective: Prospective
Not Provided
Not Provided
Probability Sample

Patients visiting the urology clinic at the University of Chicago.

Prostate Cancer
  • Behavioral: Survey, interview
    A survey is administered to patients visiting the urology clinic to undergo prostate biopsies to validate a method of utility assessment, and understand patients' individual evaluations of treatment-related health states. Medical records will also be reviewed 00 days after the survey was administered to determine whether this data reflects actual treatment decisions.
  • Behavioral: patient utility scores (i.e. patient preference weights)
    comparison of patient preferences
Prostate biopsies
Males undergoing prostate biopsies
Interventions:
  • Behavioral: Survey, interview
  • Behavioral: patient utility scores (i.e. patient preference weights)
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Recruiting
900
January 2015
January 2012   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients undergoing prostate biopsy

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Women and children will be excluded, as prostate cancer occurs in men only
  • Diagnosis of dementia
Male
18 Years and older
No
Contact: David Meltzer, M.D., Ph.D. 773-702-0836 dmeltzer@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu
United States
 
NCT00203918
12843B
No
David Meltzer, MD, PhD, University of Chicago
University of Chicago
Not Provided
Principal Investigator: David Meltzer, M.D., Ph.D. University of Chicago
University of Chicago
August 2010

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP