Katie A Greenzang1,2,3, Hasan Al-Sayegh4,3, Clement Ma, Mehdi Najafzadeh5, Eve Wittenberg6, Jennifer W Mack4,2,3. 1. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; katie_greenzang@dfci.harvard.edu. 2. Division of Population Sciences and. 3. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 6. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 80% of children with cancer become long-term survivors, yet most survivors experience late effects of treatment. Little is known about how parents and physicians consider late-effects risks against a potential survival benefit when making treatment decisions. METHODS: We used a discrete choice experiment to assess the importance of late effects on treatment decision-making and acceptable trade-offs between late-effects risks and survival benefit. We surveyed 95 parents of children with cancer and 41 physicians at Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center to assess preferences for 5 late effects of treatment: neurocognitive impairment, infertility, cardiac toxicity, second malignancies, and impaired growth and development. RESULTS: Each late effect had a statistically significant association with treatment choice, as did survival benefit (P < .001). Avoidance of severe cognitive impairment was the most important treatment consideration to parents and physicians. Parents also valued cure and decreased risk of second malignancies; physician decision-making was driven by avoidance of second malignancies and infertility. Both parents and physicians accepted a high risk of infertility (parents, a 137% increased risk; physicians, an 80% increased risk) in exchange for a 10% greater chance of cure. CONCLUSIONS: Avoidance of severe neurocognitive impairment was the predominant driver of parent and physician treatment preferences, even over an increased chance of cure. This highlights the importance of exploring parental late-effects priorities when discussing treatment options.
BACKGROUND: More than 80% of children with cancer become long-term survivors, yet most survivors experience late effects of treatment. Little is known about how parents and physicians consider late-effects risks against a potential survival benefit when making treatment decisions. METHODS: We used a discrete choice experiment to assess the importance of late effects on treatment decision-making and acceptable trade-offs between late-effects risks and survival benefit. We surveyed 95 parents of children with cancer and 41 physicians at Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center to assess preferences for 5 late effects of treatment: neurocognitive impairment, infertility, cardiac toxicity, second malignancies, and impaired growth and development. RESULTS: Each late effect had a statistically significant association with treatment choice, as did survival benefit (P < .001). Avoidance of severe cognitive impairment was the most important treatment consideration to parents and physicians. Parents also valued cure and decreased risk of second malignancies; physician decision-making was driven by avoidance of second malignancies and infertility. Both parents and physicians accepted a high risk of infertility (parents, a 137% increased risk; physicians, an 80% increased risk) in exchange for a 10% greater chance of cure. CONCLUSIONS: Avoidance of severe neurocognitive impairment was the predominant driver of parent and physician treatment preferences, even over an increased chance of cure. This highlights the importance of exploring parental late-effects priorities when discussing treatment options.
Authors: Daniel M Green; Larry E Kun; Katherine K Matthay; Anna T Meadows; William H Meyer; Paul A Meyers; Sheri L Spunt; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Hugh Simon Lam; Samuel Po Shing Wong; Flora Yuen Big Liu; Hiu Lei Wong; Tai Fai Fok; Pak Cheung Ng Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Melissa M Hudson; Ann C Mertens; Yutaka Yasui; Wendy Hobbie; Hegang Chen; James G Gurney; Mark Yeazel; Christopher J Recklitis; Neyssa Marina; Leslie R Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-09-24 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Nickhill Bhakta; Qi Liu; Kirsten K Ness; Malek Baassiri; Hesham Eissa; Frederick Yeo; Wassim Chemaitilly; Matthew J Ehrhardt; Johnnie Bass; Michael W Bishop; Kyla Shelton; Lu Lu; Sujuan Huang; Zhenghong Li; Eric Caron; Jennifer Lanctot; Carrie Howell; Timothy Folse; Vijaya Joshi; Daniel M Green; Daniel A Mulrooney; Gregory T Armstrong; Kevin R Krull; Tara M Brinkman; Raja B Khan; Deo K Srivastava; Melissa M Hudson; Yutaka Yasui; Leslie L Robison Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Katie A Greenzang; Colleen A Kelly; Hasan Al-Sayegh; Clement Ma; Jennifer W Mack Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.167