Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2015

Open Access 01-07-2015 | Original Paper

Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer-related deaths and thus represents a global health problem. According to World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, approximately 1.37 million people die each year from lung cancer. Different therapeutic approaches as well as several treatment options exist. To date decisions on which therapies to use have largely been made by clinical experts. Comparative preference studies show that underlying weighting of treatment goals by experts is not necessarily congruent with the preferences of affected patients.

Aim and methods

The aim of this empirical study was to ascertain patient preferences in relation to treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). After identification of patient-relevant treatment attributes via literature review and qualitative interviews(ten) a discrete-choice experiment including seven patient-relevant attributes was conducted using a fractional factorial NGene-design. Statistical data analysis was performed using latent class models.

Results

The qualitative part of this study identified outcome measures related to efficacy, side effects and mode of administration. A total of 211 NSCLC patients (N = 211) participated in the computer-assisted personal interview. A clear preference for an increase in “progression-free survival” (coef.: 1.087) and a reduction of “tumor-associated symptoms”(cough, shortness of breath and pain); coef.: 1.090) was demonstrated, followed by the reduction of side effects: “nausea and vomiting” (coef.: 0.605); “rash” (coef.: 0.432); “diarrhea” (coef.: 0.427); and, “tiredness and fatigue” (coef.: 0.423). The “mode of administration” was less important for participants (coef.: 0.141).

Conclusion

Preference measurement showed “progression-free survival” and “tumor-associated symptoms” had a significant influence on the treatment decision. Subgroup analysis revealed that the importance of “progression-free survival” increases with increased therapy experience. Based on the presented results therapies can be designed, assessed and chosen on the basis of patient-oriented findings. As such, more effective and efficient care of patients can be achieved and benefits increased.
Literature
1.
Klemperer, D., Rosenwirth, M.: Shared decision making: Konzept, Voraussetzungen und politische Implikationen. In: Gütersloh (2005)
2.
Bauer, H.: Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit: Etablierung der Evidenz-basierten Medizin (EbM) im chirurgischen Alltag. In: Rebscher, H. (ed.) Gesundheitsökonomie und Gesundheitspolitik im Spannungsfeld zwischen Wissenschaft und Politikberatung, Economica Verlag, Heidelberg pp. 505–525. Economica Verlagsgruppe, Heidelberg (2006)
3.
Hummel, M.J.M., Snoek, G.J., Til, J.A., Rossum, W., Ijzerman, M.J.: A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev 42(5), 635–644 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
4.
Mühlbacher, A.C., Bethge, S., Ekert, S., Tockhorn, A., Nübling, M.: Der Wert von Innovationen im Gesundheitswesen: spielen die Patientenpräferenzen eine Rolle? Recht und Politik im Gesundheitswesen 14(2), 53–62 (2008)
5.
Farin-Glattacker, E., Meder, M., Nagl, M.: Patientenorientierte Veränderungsmessung: Gesundheitsbewertungen und die Beurteilung der Teilhabe-Relevanz von Behandlungseffekten durch chronisch Kranke. Abschlussbericht zum Projekt In, Freiburg (2011)
6.
Frosch, D.L., Härter, M., Simon, D., Mulley, A.G.: Variation und Verteilungsgerechtigkeit: patientenpräferenzen berücksichtigen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 107(43), 2100–2104 (2010)
7.
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlicheit im Gesundheitswesen: Allgemeinen Methoden Version 4.1: Aktualisierung einiger Abschnitte der Allgemeinen Methoden Version 4.0 sowie neue Abschnitte zur Erstellung. In: Köln (2013)
8.
Mühlbacher, A.C.: Patientenpräferenzen bei der Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung. Interview. Patientenbrief. Ihr gesundheitspolitischer Fakten- & News-Letter (2008)
9.
Mühlbacher, A.C., Bethge, S., Tockhorn, A.: Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie Qualitätsmanagement 18(4), 159–172 (2013)CrossRef
10.
Goeckenjan, G., Sitter, H., Thomas, M., Branscheid, D., Flentje, M., Griesinger, F., Niederle, N., Stuschke, M., Blum, T., Deppermann, K.-M.: Prävention, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Lungenkarzinoms. Pneumologie 64(S 02), e1–e164 (2010)
11.
12.
13.
Peters, S., Adjei, A.A., Gridelli, C., Reck, M., Kerr, K., Felip, E., Group, o.b.o.t.E.G.W.: Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology 23(suppl 7), vii56–vii64 (2012). doi:10.​1093/​annonc/​mds226
14.
Simonato, L., Agudo, A., Ahrens, W., Benhamou, E., Benhamou, S., Boffetta, P., Brennan, P., Darby, S.C., Forastiere, F., Fortes, C.: Lung cancer and cigarette smoking in Europe: an update of risk estimates and an assessment of inter-country heterogeneity. Int J Cancer 91(6), 876–887 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
15.
Wakelee, H.A., Chang, E.T., Gomez, S.L., Keegan, T.H., Feskanich, D., Clarke, C.A., Holmberg, L., Yong, L.C., Kolonel, L.N., Gould, M.K.: Lung cancer incidence in never smokers. J Clin Oncol 25(5), 472–478 (2007)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
16.
Ahrendt, S.A., Decker, P.A., Alawi, E.A., Zhu, Yr, Sanchez-Cespedes, M., Yang, S.C., Haasler, G.B., Kajdacsy-Balla, A., Demeure, M.J., Sidransky, D.: Cigarette smoking is strongly associated with mutation of the K-ras gene in patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the lung. Cancer 92(6), 1525–1530 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
17.
Pao, W., Miller, V., Zakowski, M., Doherty, J., Politi, K., Sarkaria, I., Singh, B., Heelan, R., Rusch, V., Fulton, L.: EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(36), 13306–13311 (2004)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
18.
Jänne, P.A., Johnson, B.E.: Effect of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase domain mutations on the outcome of patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res 12(14), 4416s–4420s (2006). doi:10.​1158/​1078-0432.​ccr-06-0555 PubMedCrossRef
19.
Ettinger, D.S., Akerley, W., Bepler, G., Blum, M.G., Chang, A., Cheney, R.T., Chirieac, L.R., D’Amico, T.A., Demmy, T.L., Ganti, A.K., Govindan, R., Grannis, F.W., Jr., Jahan, T., Jahanzeb, M., Johnson, D.H., Kessinger, A., Komaki, R., Kong, F.M., Kris, M.G., Krug, L.M., Le, Q.T., Lennes, I.T., Martins, R., O’Malley, J., Osarogiagbon, R.U., Otterson, G.A., Patel, J.D., Pisters, K.M., Reckamp, K., Riely, G.J., Rohren, E., Simon, G.R., Swanson, S.J., Wood, D.E., Yang, S.C.: Non-small cell lung cancer. J Nat. Comp. Cancer Netw. 8(7), 740–801 (2010)
20.
Ettinger, D.S., Akerley, W., Borghaein, H., Chnag, A.C., Cheney, R.T., Chirieac, L.R., D’Amico, T.A., Demmy, T.L., Govindan, R., Grannis, F.W., Jr., Grant, S.C., Horn, L.: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer—NCCL Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). (2013)
21.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Medizinische Onkologie e.V. (DGHO): Onkopedia–Leitinien—Lungenkarzinom, nicht-kleinzellig (NSCLC). Empfehlungen der Fachgesellschaft zur Diagnostik und Therapie hämatologischer und onkologischer Erkrankungen (2012)
22.
Peters, S., Adjei, A., Gridelli, C., Reck, M., Kerr, K., Felip, E.: Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 23(suppl 7), vii56–vii64 (2012)
23.
24.
25.
Brundage, M.D., Davidson, J.R., Mackillop, W.J.: Trading treatment toxicity for survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 15(1), 330–340 (1997)PubMed
26.
27.
Dubey, S., Brown, R.L., Esmond, S.L., Bowers, B.J., Healy, J.M., Schiller, J.H.: Patient preferences in choosing chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Support Oncol 3(2), 149–154 (2005)PubMed
28.
29.
Heitmann, C., Thomas, M.: Präoperative trimodale Induktionstherapie beim lokal weit fortgeschrittenen nicht-kleinzelligen Bronchialkarzinom. Münster, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Diss., 2011 (2011)
30.
31.
Lancaster, K.J.: A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ 74(2), 132–157 (1966)CrossRef
32.
McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in econometrics, pp. 105–142. Acedemic Press, New York (1974)
33.
Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R.: Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press series in transportation studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] (1985)
34.
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)
35.
Johnson, F.R.: Why not ask?: measuring patient preferences for healthcare decision making. Patient 1(4), 245–248 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
36.
Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26(8), 661–678 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
37.
Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya-Amaya, M.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. The economics of non-market goods and resources. Springer, Dordrecht (2008)CrossRef
38.
39.
Bridges, J., Hauber, B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., Johnson, R.F., Mauskopf, J.: Conjoint Analysis Use in Health Studies—A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis in Health Good Research Practices Task Force. ISPOR TF Report (2011)
40.
Kornmeier, M.: Wissenschaftstheorie und wissenschaftliches Arbeiten: eine Einführung für Wirtschaftswissenschaftler. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg (2007)
41.
Helm, R., Steiner, M.: Präferenzmessung: Methodengestützte Entwicklung zielgruppenspezifischer Produktinnovationen. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart (2008)
42.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protection: Guidance on Reviewing and Reporting Unanticipated Problems Involving Risks to Subjects or Others and Adverse Events (2007)
43.
Reed Johnson, F., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D.A., Bresnahan, B.W., Kanninen, B., Bridges, J.F.: Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 16(1), 3–13 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
44.
Orme, B.K.: Sample size issues for conjoint analysis. In: getting started with conjoint analysis, pp. 57–66. Research Publishers LLC, Madison (2010)
45.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., Pickles, A.: GLLAMM Manual. Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, U.C. Berkeley (2004)
46.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., Pickles, A.: Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects. J Econom 128(2), 301–323 (2005)CrossRef
47.
Bridges, J.F.P., Mohamed, A.F., Finnern, H.W., Woehl, A., Hauber, A.B.: Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer 77(1), 224–231 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
48.
Petrelli, F., Borgonovo, K., Cabiddu, M., Veronica, L., Barni, S.: Relationship between skin rash and outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with anti-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a literature-based meta-analysis of 24 trials. Lung Cancer 78(1), 8–15 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
49.
Brundage, M., Feldman-Stewart, D., Cosby, R., Gregg, R., Dixon, P., Youssef, Y., Mackillop, W.: Cancer patients’ attitudes toward treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: implications for patient education and decision support. Patient Educ Couns 45(2), 149–157 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
50.
Hirose, T., Horichi, N., Ohmori, T., Kusumoto, S., Sugiyama, T., Shirai, T., Ozawa, T., Ohnishi, T., Adachi, M.: Patients preferences in chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Intern Med 44(2), 107–113 (2005). JST.JSTAGE/internalmedicine/44.107 [pii]PubMedCrossRef
51.
Hirose, T., Yamaoka, T., Ohnishi, T., Sugiyama, T., Kusumoto, S., Shirai, T., Okuda, K., Ohmori, T., Adachi, M.: Patient willingness to undergo chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Psycho-Oncology 18(5), 483–489 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer
Publication date
01-07-2015
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0622-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2015 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography

Original Paper

Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment

Original Paper

Long-term effects of oral clefts on health care utilization: a sibling comparison

Editorial

When do performance-based risk-sharing arrangements make sense?

Original Paper

The effect of neighbourhood mortality shocks on fertility preferences: a spatial econometric approach

Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: results from the KORINNA study