Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models

BMC Cancer

Table 5 Quality of life values assigned to health states

Study	Starting state	Diagnosis		Treatment		Other	Advanced	End of life	Adverse effects
Study	Starting state	Biopsy	Cancer	Short- term	Long-term	Other	Advanced	End of life	Adverse effects
Chilcott, Hummel [23]	Baseline = age dependent	–	–				0.635		Bowel function = 0.89 Urinary function = 0.94 Sexual dysfunction =0.9
Heijnsdijk et al. [25]	Screening = 0.99	0.9	0.8	Radiation = 0.73	Radiation = 0.78	Post-recovery = 0.95	0.6	0.4	Short-term & long-term effect
				Prostatectomy = 0.67	Prostatectomy = 0.77
				Active surveillance = 0.97	Active surveillance = 0.97
Hummel and Chilcott [24]	Baseline = age dependent						0.635		Bowel function = 0.89 Urinary function = 0.94 Sexual dysfunction =0.9
Keller et al. [29]	age dependent/ screening = 1.0			0.95^b	0.95^b		0.9 to >0.6^b		See treatment: Persistent effects, 3 years post-diagnosis
Kobayashi et al. [27]						Curable = 0.9 Recurrent = 0.7	0.5		See curable: impotence & incontinence
Martin et al. [30]			0.95^a					0.5	See cancer
Pataky et al. [26]	Healthy screening population = 1.0			0.88	0.9	Symptomatic =0.9	0.85	0.5	Short-term & long-term effect
Roth et al. [28]	Healthy screening population = 1.0			0.75	0.92	Symptomatic =0.89	0.75	0.33	Short-term & long-term effect
Roth et al. [28]				Surveillance = 0.92	Surveillance = 0.92				Short-term & long-term effect

ISSN: 1471-2407