Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2013

01-11-2013 | Clinical trial

Preference weights for chemotherapy side effects from the perspective of women with breast cancer

Authors: I. Kuchuk, N. Bouganim, K. Beusterien, J. Grinspan, L. Vandermeer, S. Gertler, S. F. Dent, X. Song, R. Segal, S. Mazzarello, F. Crawley, G. Dranitsaris, M. Clemons

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Perceptions among women with breast cancer about the relative importance of different potential chemotherapy side effects is not well understood. A survey was performed by women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Grade I/II (mild to moderate) and III/IV (moderate to severe) descriptions of nine common chemotherapy side effects were assigned preference weights using the standard gamble technique. For each hypothetical side effect, patients could choose to stay in the respective side effect state or take a gamble between full health (probability p) or being dead (1 − p). For each side effect, p was varied until the patient was indifferent between these options. The survey also included questions about the importance of survival, slowing cancer growth, and quality of life. This analysis included 69 patients; mean age 54 years (range 35–84), representing all cancer stages. Standard gamble preferences were lowest (i.e., least preferred) for grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (0.621), indicating that patients would, on average, risk a 38 % chance of being dead to avoid having grade III/IV nausea/vomiting for the rest of their lives. The next least preferred side effects were grade III/IV diarrhea (0.677) and grade III/IV sensory neuropathy (0.694). Survival appeared more important than slowing cancer growth and maintaining quality of life across cancer stages. Nevertheless, patients with advanced disease placed less importance on survival (p = 0.09) and higher importance on quality of life (p = 0.05). These standard gamble utilities provide unique insights into chemotherapy toxicities from the patient perspective. Differences in the relative importance of overall survival and quality of life with treatment existed between patients with different stages of disease. These studies should be expanded as the data may also be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast cancer chemotherapies.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Vliet Vlieland TP, Leer JW, Nooy MA, Kievit J (1998) Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Mak 18(4):391–399CrossRef Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Vliet Vlieland TP, Leer JW, Nooy MA, Kievit J (1998) Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Mak 18(4):391–399CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T, Hadley T, Roetzer L, Dineen S, Lorenz D, YoussefAgha A, McMasters KM (2003) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol 21(23):4299–4305. doi:10.1200/jco.2003.06.025 PubMedCrossRef Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T, Hadley T, Roetzer L, Dineen S, Lorenz D, YoussefAgha A, McMasters KM (2003) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol 21(23):4299–4305. doi:10.​1200/​jco.​2003.​06.​025 PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Brazier J, Deverill M (1998) The use of health-related quality of life instruments in economic evaluation in health services research methods. A guide to best practice. BMJ Books, London Brazier J, Deverill M (1998) The use of health-related quality of life instruments in economic evaluation in health services research methods. A guide to best practice. BMJ Books, London
4.
go back to reference Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5(1):1–30PubMedCrossRef Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5(1):1–30PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Iglesias CP, Cooper NJ (2008) Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom: a game of two halves? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24(2):146–150. doi:10.1017/s0266462308080203 PubMedCrossRef Drummond MF, Iglesias CP, Cooper NJ (2008) Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom: a game of two halves? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24(2):146–150. doi:10.​1017/​s026646230808020​3 PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Melnikow J, Birch S, Slee C, McCarthy TJ, Helms LJ, Kuppermann M (2008) Tamoxifen for breast cancer risk reduction: impact of alternative approaches to quality-of-life adjustment on cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 46(9):946–953. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318179250f PubMedCrossRef Melnikow J, Birch S, Slee C, McCarthy TJ, Helms LJ, Kuppermann M (2008) Tamoxifen for breast cancer risk reduction: impact of alternative approaches to quality-of-life adjustment on cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 46(9):946–953. doi:10.​1097/​MLR.​0b013e318179250f​ PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Mansel R, Locker G, Fallowfield L, Benedict A, Jones D (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole vs tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer in the United Kingdom: the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘arimidex’, tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial. Br J Cancer 97(2):152–161. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603804 PubMedCrossRef Mansel R, Locker G, Fallowfield L, Benedict A, Jones D (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis of anastrozole vs tamoxifen in adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer in the United Kingdom: the 5-year completed treatment analysis of the ATAC (‘arimidex’, tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial. Br J Cancer 97(2):152–161. doi:10.​1038/​sj.​bjc.​6603804 PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A (2001) Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 19(11):1091–1102PubMedCrossRef Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A (2001) Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 19(11):1091–1102PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
go back to reference Furlong W, Feeney D, Torrance G (1990) Guide to design and development of health state utility instrumentation. Center for Health Economics Policy Analysis Working Paper Series. Hamilton (Ontario): McMaster University Paper No. 90-9 Furlong W, Feeney D, Torrance G (1990) Guide to design and development of health state utility instrumentation. Center for Health Economics Policy Analysis Working Paper Series. Hamilton (Ontario): McMaster University Paper No. 90-9
13.
go back to reference Beusterien K, Leigh N, Jackson C, Miller R, Mayo K, Revicki D (2005) Integrating preferences into health status assessment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: the ALS Utility Index. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron disord 6(3):169–176. doi:10.1080/14660820410021339 PubMedCrossRef Beusterien K, Leigh N, Jackson C, Miller R, Mayo K, Revicki D (2005) Integrating preferences into health status assessment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: the ALS Utility Index. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron disord 6(3):169–176. doi:10.​1080/​1466082041002133​9 PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sun CC, Bodurka DC, Weaver CB, Rasu R, Wolf JK, Bevers MW, Smith JA, Wharton JT, Rubenstein EB (2005) Rankings and symptom assessments of side effects from chemotherapy: insights from experienced patients with ovarian cancer. Support Care Cancer 13(4):219–227. doi:10.1007/s00520-004-0710-6 PubMedCrossRef Sun CC, Bodurka DC, Weaver CB, Rasu R, Wolf JK, Bevers MW, Smith JA, Wharton JT, Rubenstein EB (2005) Rankings and symptom assessments of side effects from chemotherapy: insights from experienced patients with ovarian cancer. Support Care Cancer 13(4):219–227. doi:10.​1007/​s00520-004-0710-6 PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Griffin AM, Butow PN, Coates AS, Childs AM, Ellis PM, Dunn SM, Tattersall MH (1996) On the receiving end. V: patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Ann Oncol 7(2):189–195PubMedCrossRef Griffin AM, Butow PN, Coates AS, Childs AM, Ellis PM, Dunn SM, Tattersall MH (1996) On the receiving end. V: patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Ann Oncol 7(2):189–195PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB, Sowerbutts T, Frewin C, Fox RM, Tattersall MH (1983) On the receiving end–patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 19(2):203–208PubMedCrossRef Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB, Sowerbutts T, Frewin C, Fox RM, Tattersall MH (1983) On the receiving end–patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 19(2):203–208PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lindley C, McCune JS, Thomason TE, Lauder D, Sauls A, Adkins S, Sawyer WT (1999) Perception of chemotherapy side effects cancer versus noncancer patients. Cancer Pract 7(2):59–65PubMedCrossRef Lindley C, McCune JS, Thomason TE, Lauder D, Sauls A, Adkins S, Sawyer WT (1999) Perception of chemotherapy side effects cancer versus noncancer patients. Cancer Pract 7(2):59–65PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL (2001) An internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(2):370–377PubMedCrossRef Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL (2001) An internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(2):370–377PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Preference weights for chemotherapy side effects from the perspective of women with breast cancer
Authors
I. Kuchuk
N. Bouganim
K. Beusterien
J. Grinspan
L. Vandermeer
S. Gertler
S. F. Dent
X. Song
R. Segal
S. Mazzarello
F. Crawley
G. Dranitsaris
M. Clemons
Publication date
01-11-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2727-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2013 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine