Literature DB >> 11401308

Patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: is treatment worthwhile?

S J Jansen1, J Kievit, M A Nooij, J C de Haes, I M Overpelt, H van Slooten, E Maartense, A M Stiggelbout.   

Abstract

When making decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer, costs and benefits of treatment should be carefully weighed. In this process, patients' preferences are of major importance. The objectives of the present study were: (1) to determine the minimum benefits that patients need to find chemotherapy acceptable, and (2) to explore potential preference determinants, namely: positive experience of the treatment, reconciliation with the treatment decision, and demographic variables. Preferences were elicited from patients scheduled for adjuvant chemotherapy (chemotherapy group: n = 38) before (T(1)), during (T(2)), and 1 month after chemotherapy (T(3)), and were compared to responses from patients not scheduled for chemotherapy (no-chemotherapy group: n = 38). The patients were asked, for a hypothetical situation, to indicate the minimum benefit (in terms of improved 5-year disease-free survival) to find adjuvant chemotherapy acceptable. In the chemotherapy group, the median benefit was 1% at all 3 measurement points. In the no-chemotherapy group the attitude towards chemotherapy became more negative over time, although not statistically significantly so (T(1): 12%, T(2): 15%, T(3): 15%; P = 0.10). At all measurement points, the patients in the chemotherapy group indicated that they would accept chemotherapy for significantly (P< 0.01) less benefit than the patients in the no-chemotherapy group. Of the demographic variables, age was related to preferences, but only at T(2)and only in the no-chemotherapy group. The more positive attitude towards chemotherapy and the stability of preferences in the chemotherapy group indicated that reconciliation with the treatment decision was a more important determinant of patients' preferences than positive experience of the treatment. Copyright 2001 Cancer Research Campaign.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11401308      PMCID: PMC2363690          DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1836

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  29 in total

1.  A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient's preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  M N Levine; A Gafni; B Markham; D MacFarlane
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-07-01       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Using a trade-off technique to assess patients' treatment preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  H A Llewellyn-Thomas; J I Williams; L Levy; C D Naylor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1996 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Factors affecting treatment decisions for a life-threatening illness: the case of medical treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  L A Siminoff; J H Fetting
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a study of women with early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  R P McQuellon; H B Muss; S L Hoffman; G Russell; B Craven; S B Yellen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Breast irradiation postlumpectomy: development and evaluation of a decision instrument.

Authors:  T J Whelan; M N Levine; A Gafni; H Lukka; E A Mohide; M Patel; D L Streiner
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Age and clinical decision making in oncology patients.

Authors:  S B Yellen; D F Cella; W T Leslie
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1994-12-07       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Patients' preferences for therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: development, testing, and application of a bedside decision instrument.

Authors:  L M Elit; M N Levine; A Gafni; T J Whelan; G Doig; D L Streiner; B Rosen
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: discordance between physicians' perception of benefit and the results of clinical trials.

Authors:  S Rajagopal; P J Goodman; I F Tannock
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Someone to live for: social well-being, parenthood status, and decision-making in oncology.

Authors:  S B Yellen; D F Cella
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Does it matter where you live? Treatment variation for breast cancer in Yorkshire. The Yorkshire Breast Cancer Group.

Authors:  R Sainsbury; L Rider; A Smith; A MacAdam
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  25 in total

1.  All nodes lead to chemo...

Authors:  Lidia Schapira; Michaela J Higgins
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2011

2.  Targets for Neoadjuvant Therapy - The Preferences of Patients with Early Breast Cancer.

Authors:  M Thill; G Pisa; G Isbary
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Can differences in breast cancer utilities explain disparities in breast cancer care?

Authors:  Mark D Schleinitz; Dina DePalo; Jeffrey Blume; Michael Stein
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  A demonstration of ''less can be more'' in risk graphics.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Effect of endurance for adverse drug reactions on the preference for aggressive treatments in cancer patients.

Authors:  Naomi Iihara; Takayuki Nishio; Tetsuko Goda; Hideaki Anzai; Masatoshi Kagawa; Hitoshi Houchi; Yutaka Kirino
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Factors influencing treatment recommendations in node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Elisabeth Edstrom Elder; Sally Baron Hay; Katrina Moore
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.840

7.  The use of formal and informal knowledge sources in patients' treatment decisions in secondary stroke prevention: qualitative study.

Authors:  Josephine M E Gibson; Caroline L Watkins
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Methodologic evaluation of adaptive conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences: an application in oncology.

Authors:  Arwen H Pieterse; Anne M Stiggelbout; Corrie A M Marijnen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Ranked importance of outcomes of first-line versus repeated chemotherapy among ovarian cancer patients.

Authors:  Vanessa L Beesley; Alexandra M Clavarino; Penelope M Webb; David K Wyld; Alessandra B Francesconi; Keith R Horwood; James D Doecke; Colleen A Loos; Adele C Green
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Assessment of preferences for treatment: validation of a measure.

Authors:  Souraya Sidani; Dana R Epstein; Richard R Bootzin; Patricia Moritz; Joyal Miranda
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.228

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.