OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate preferences associated with grade I/II and grade III/IV chemotherapy side effects among breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. We also assessed trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment side effects and the route and schedule of treatment administration. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer completed a one-time Web survey. Conjoint analysis was used to elicit preferences for 17 grade I/II and III/IV side effects associated with available chemotherapies and regimens. In the analysis, the risk of each side effect was increased by 5%, holding all others constant, and the respective impact on patient preferences was identified. RESULTS: A total of 102 women participated (mean age 54 ± 11). Among the grade I/II side effects, a 5% reduction in the risk of sensory neuropathy, nausea, and motor neuropathy had the highest impact on preferences. Among grade III/IV side effects, motor neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, and myalgia made the most difference. An oral twice-daily regimen was most preferred; however, patients were willing to receive an intravenous regimen relative to oral to avoid an increased risk of 5% in the majority of side effects. Avoiding an increased chance of grade III/IV motor neuropathy was associated with willingness to tolerate one of the least preferred administration schedules. CONCLUSION: This study identified relative preferences among both mild/moderate to severe side effects from the patient perspective. Patients appear to be willing to make trade-offs between side effects and different regimens. These findings may help to inform medical decision-making processes.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate preferences associated with grade I/II and grade III/IV chemotherapy side effects among breast cancerpatients receiving chemotherapy. We also assessed trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment side effects and the route and schedule of treatment administration. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer completed a one-time Web survey. Conjoint analysis was used to elicit preferences for 17 grade I/II and III/IV side effects associated with available chemotherapies and regimens. In the analysis, the risk of each side effect was increased by 5%, holding all others constant, and the respective impact on patient preferences was identified. RESULTS: A total of 102 women participated (mean age 54 ± 11). Among the grade I/II side effects, a 5% reduction in the risk of sensory neuropathy, nausea, and motor neuropathy had the highest impact on preferences. Among grade III/IV side effects, motor neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, and myalgia made the most difference. An oral twice-daily regimen was most preferred; however, patients were willing to receive an intravenous regimen relative to oral to avoid an increased risk of 5% in the majority of side effects. Avoiding an increased chance of grade III/IV motor neuropathy was associated with willingness to tolerate one of the least preferred administration schedules. CONCLUSION: This study identified relative preferences among both mild/moderate to severe side effects from the patient perspective. Patients appear to be willing to make trade-offs between side effects and different regimens. These findings may help to inform medical decision-making processes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Conjoint; Preferences; Side effects; Tradeoffs
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: John F P Bridges; Ateesha F Mohamed; Henrik W Finnern; Anette Woehl; A Brett Hauber Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: M Ryan; D A Scott; C Reeves; A Bate; E R van Teijlingen; E M Russell; M Napper; C M Robb Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Charlotte C Sun; Diane C Bodurka; Candice B Weaver; Rafia Rasu; Judith K Wolf; Michael W Bevers; Judith A Smith; J Taylor Wharton; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kathleen M Beusterien; John Davies; Michael Leach; David Meiklejohn; Jessica L Grinspan; Alison O'Toole; Steve Bramham-Jones Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: V Valentí; J Ramos; C Pérez; L Capdevila; I Ruiz; L Tikhomirova; M Sánchez; I Juez; M Llobera; E Sopena; J Rubió; R Salazar Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Catalina Hernandez Torres; Sasha Mazzarello; Terry Ng; George Dranitsaris; Brian Hutton; Stephanie Smith; Amy Munro; Carmel Jacobs; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R Fernandes; S Mazzarello; A A Joy; G R Pond; J Hilton; M F K Ibrahim; C Canil; M Ong; C Stober; L Vandermeer; B Hutton; M da Costa; S Damaraju; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ricardo Fernandes; Sasha Mazzarello; Brian Hutton; Risa Shorr; Habeeb Majeed; Mohammed Fk Ibrahim; Carmel Jacobs; Michael Ong; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 3.603