Prunella Blinman1, Brett Hughes2, Catherine Crombie3, Tim Christmas4, Malcolm Hudson5, Anne-Sophie Veillard5, Nick Muljadi5, Michael Millward6, Gavin Wright7, Peter Flynn3, Morgan Windsor8, Martin Stockler9, Sue-Anne McLachlan10. 1. Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: prunella.blinman@sswahs.nsw.gov.au. 2. The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Nepean Cancer Care, Sydney, Australia. 4. Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Australia. 6. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia. 7. St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 8. The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 9. Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia; NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Australia. 10. St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves overall survival, but the benefits must be weighed against its harms. We sought to determine the survival benefits that patients and their doctors judged sufficient to make ACT in NSCLC worthwhile. METHODS: 122 patients completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline and 6 months (before & after ACT, if they had it); 82 doctors completed the questionnaire once only. The time trade-off method was used to determine the minimum survival benefits judged sufficient in four hypothetical scenarios. Baseline survival times were 3 years & 5 years and baseline survival rates (at 5 years) were 50% & 65%. RESULTS: At baseline, the median benefits judged sufficient by patients were an extra 9 months (Interquartile range (IQR) 1-12 months) beyond 3 years & 5 years and an extra 5% (IQR 0.1-10%) beyond 50% & 65%. At 6 months (n=91), patients' preferences had the same median benefit (9 months & 5%) but varied more (IQRs 0-18 months & 0-15%) than at baseline. Factors associated with judging smaller benefits sufficient were deciding to have ACT (P=0.01, 0.02) and better well-being (P=0.01, 0.006) during ACT. Doctors' preferences, compared with patients' preferences, had similar median benefits (9 months & 5%) but varied less (IQR 6-12 months versus 1-12 months, P<0.001; 5%-10% versus 0.1-10%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Most patients and doctors judged moderate survival benefits sufficient to make ACT in NSCLC worthwhile, but the preferences of doctors varied less than those of patients. Doctors should endeavour to elicit patients' preferences during discussions about ACT in NSCLC.
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves overall survival, but the benefits must be weighed against its harms. We sought to determine the survival benefits that patients and their doctors judged sufficient to make ACT in NSCLC worthwhile. METHODS: 122 patients completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline and 6 months (before & after ACT, if they had it); 82 doctors completed the questionnaire once only. The time trade-off method was used to determine the minimum survival benefits judged sufficient in four hypothetical scenarios. Baseline survival times were 3 years & 5 years and baseline survival rates (at 5 years) were 50% & 65%. RESULTS: At baseline, the median benefits judged sufficient by patients were an extra 9 months (Interquartile range (IQR) 1-12 months) beyond 3 years & 5 years and an extra 5% (IQR 0.1-10%) beyond 50% & 65%. At 6 months (n=91), patients' preferences had the same median benefit (9 months & 5%) but varied more (IQRs 0-18 months & 0-15%) than at baseline. Factors associated with judging smaller benefits sufficient were deciding to have ACT (P=0.01, 0.02) and better well-being (P=0.01, 0.006) during ACT. Doctors' preferences, compared with patients' preferences, had similar median benefits (9 months & 5%) but varied less (IQR 6-12 months versus 1-12 months, P<0.001; 5%-10% versus 0.1-10%, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Most patients and doctors judged moderate survival benefits sufficient to make ACT in NSCLC worthwhile, but the preferences of doctors varied less than those of patients. Doctors should endeavour to elicit patients' preferences during discussions about ACT in NSCLC.
Authors: Markus Schuler; Jan Schildmann; Freya Trautmann; Leopold Hentschel; Beate Hornemann; Anke Rentsch; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Prajwal Dhakal; Christopher S Wichman; Bunny Pozehl; Meaghann Weaver; Alfred L Fisher; Julie Vose; R Gregory Bociek; Vijaya R Bhatt Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.674
Authors: Nicola J Lawrence; Andrew Martin; Ian D Davis; Simon Troon; Shomik Sengupta; Elizabeth Hovey; Xanthi Coskinas; Richard Kaplan; Benjamin Smith; Alastair Ritchie; Angela Meade; Tim Eisen; Prunella Blinman; Martin R Stockler Journal: Kidney Cancer Date: 2018-08-01
Authors: Prunella Blinman; Linda Mileshkin; Pearly Khaw; Geraldine Goss; Carol Johnson; Anne Capp; Susan Brooks; Gerard Wain; Ilka Kolodziej; Anne-Sophie Veillard; Rachel O'Connell; Carien L Creutzberg; Martin R Stockler Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Saskia Spaich; Johanna Kinder; Svetlana Hetjens; Stefan Fuxius; Axel Gerhardt; Marc Sütterlin Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Prunella Blinman; Andrew Martin; Michael Jefford; David Goldstein; David Boadle; Michelle Morris; Niall Tebbutt; Christine Aiken; Andrea Harkin; Eva Segelov; Andrew Haydon; Tim Iveson; Martin R Stockler Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-11-28