Betty C Tong1, Scott Wallace2, Matthew G Hartwig3, Thomas A D'Amico3, Joel C Huber2. 1. Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: betty.tong@duke.edu. 2. The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decision-making for lung cancer treatment can be complex because it involves both provider recommendations based on the patient's clinical condition and patient preferences. This study describes the relative importance of several considerations in lung cancer treatment from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A conjoint preference experiment began by asking respondents to imagine that they had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. Respondents then chose among procedures that differed regarding treatment modalities, the potential for treatment-related complications, the likelihood of recurrence, provider case volume, and distance needed to travel for treatment. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes. RESULTS: A total of 225 responses were analyzed. Respondents were most willing to accept minimally invasive operations for treatment of their hypothetical lung cancer, followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); they were least willing to accept thoracotomy. Treatment type and risk of recurrence were the most important attributes from the conjoint experiment (each with a relative weight of 0.23), followed by provider volume (relative weight of 0.21), risk of major complications (relative weight of 0.18), and distance needed to travel for treatment (relative weight of 0.15). Procedural and treatment preferences did not vary with demographics, self-reported health status, or familiarity with the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents preferred minimally invasive operations over SBRT or thoracotomy for treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Treatment modality and risk of cancer recurrence were the most important factors associated with treatment preferences. Provider experience outweighed the potential need to travel for lung cancer treatment.
BACKGROUND: Decision-making for lung cancer treatment can be complex because it involves both provider recommendations based on the patient's clinical condition and patient preferences. This study describes the relative importance of several considerations in lung cancer treatment from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A conjoint preference experiment began by asking respondents to imagine that they had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. Respondents then chose among procedures that differed regarding treatment modalities, the potential for treatment-related complications, the likelihood of recurrence, provider case volume, and distance needed to travel for treatment. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes. RESULTS: A total of 225 responses were analyzed. Respondents were most willing to accept minimally invasive operations for treatment of their hypothetical lung cancer, followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); they were least willing to accept thoracotomy. Treatment type and risk of recurrence were the most important attributes from the conjoint experiment (each with a relative weight of 0.23), followed by provider volume (relative weight of 0.21), risk of major complications (relative weight of 0.18), and distance needed to travel for treatment (relative weight of 0.15). Procedural and treatment preferences did not vary with demographics, self-reported health status, or familiarity with the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents preferred minimally invasive operations over SBRT or thoracotomy for treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Treatment modality and risk of cancer recurrence were the most important factors associated with treatment preferences. Provider experience outweighed the potential need to travel for lung cancer treatment.
Authors: Varun Puri; Traves D Crabtree; Steven Kymes; Martin Gregory; Jennifer Bell; Jeffrey D Bradley; Clifford Robinson; G Alexander Patterson; Daniel Kreisel; Alexander S Krupnick; Bryan F Meyers Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Subroto Paul; Nasser K Altorki; Shubin Sheng; Paul C Lee; David H Harpole; Mark W Onaitis; Brendon M Stiles; Jeffrey L Port; Thomas A D'Amico Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Jessica C Lloyd; Talitha Yen; Ricardo Pietrobon; John S Wiener; Sherry S Ross; Paul J Kokorowski; Caleb P Nelson; Jonathan C Routh Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: A G Pallis; C Gridelli; U Wedding; C Faivre-Finn; G Veronesi; M Jaklitsch; A Luciani; M O'Brien Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-16 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Raja M Flores; Ugonna N Ihekweazu; Nabil Rizk; Joseph Dycoco; Manjit S Bains; Robert J Downey; Prasad Adusumilli; David J Finley; James Huang; Valerie W Rusch; Inderpal Sarkaria; Bernard Park Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: David S Ettinger; Wallace Akerley; Hossein Borghaei; Andrew C Chang; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Stefan C Grant; Leora Horn; Thierry M Jahan; Ritsuko Komaki; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug; Rudy P Lackner; Inga T Lennes; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; Theresa A Shapiro; Scott J Swanson; Kurt Tauer; Douglas E Wood; Stephen C Yang; Kristina Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Ernest R Vina; Tammy O Utset; Michael J Hannon; Christopher M Masi; Nicole Roberts; C Kent Kwoh Journal: Clin Exp Rheumatol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 4.473