Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology 6/2020

01-06-2020 | Research Article

Increased survival time or better quality of life? Trade-off between benefits and adverse events in the systemic treatment of cancer

Authors: V. Valentí, J. Ramos, C. Pérez, L. Capdevila, I. Ruiz, L. Tikhomirova, M. Sánchez, I. Juez, M. Llobera, E. Sopena, J. Rubió, R. Salazar

Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology | Issue 6/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Primary objective of the study was to assess the relative weighting between benefit in survival time (SV), benefit in quality of life (QoL) and willingness to experience adverse events (AEs), in patient preferences for chemotherapy treatment.

Materials and methods

We included cancer patients with current or past systemic treatment of cancer (STC) as well as physicians placed as hypothetical patients. Participants filled a choice-based conjoint analysis questionnaire with 19 choices among three STC scenarios with variable amounts of benefit in SV or QoL and different types AEs.

Results

One hundred patients (50 on curative and 50 on palliative intention treatment) and 114 physicians (61 oncologists and 53 non-oncologists) were included and asked about their preferred chemotherapy treatment. The relative weighting (sum 100%) of SV–QoL–AEs for making the choice in the 100 patients was SV35%–CV33%–AEs31% what was not significantly different from a random distribution (Goodness of fit Chi square P = 0.91) just as it was not for both subgroups, palliative (SV37%–QoL29%–AEs34%; GoF Chi square P = 0.55) and curative (SV34%–QoL36%–AEs30%; GoF Chi square P = 0.73) treatment. The observed distribution in the group of 114 physicians (SV46%–QoL31%–AEs23%) was significantly different from a random distribution (GoF Chi square P = 0.018) just as it was for both subgroups, medical oncologists (SV48%-QoL29%-AEs23%; GoF Chi square P = 0.006) and non-medical oncologists (SV44%–QoL33%–AEs23%; GoF Chi square P = 0.04).

Conclusions

The three attributes (SV, QoL, and AEs) are considered in the same way by cancer patients to make choices on their STC. On the contrary, when placed as hypothetical patients, physicians prefer for themselves those treatments that provide more SV.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A Framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–50.CrossRef Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A Framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–50.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Allen JD, Stewart MD, Roberts SA, Sigal EV. The value of addressing patient preferences. Value Health. 2017;20(2):283–5.CrossRef Allen JD, Stewart MD, Roberts SA, Sigal EV. The value of addressing patient preferences. Value Health. 2017;20(2):283–5.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Perfetto EM, Oehrlein EM, Boutin M, Reid S, Gascho E. Value to whom? the patient voice in the value discussion. Value Health. 2017;20(2):286–91.CrossRef Perfetto EM, Oehrlein EM, Boutin M, Reid S, Gascho E. Value to whom? the patient voice in the value discussion. Value Health. 2017;20(2):286–91.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Collins DC, Sundar R, Lim JSJ, Yap TA. Towards precision medicine in the clinic: from biomarker discovery to novel therapeutics. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2017;38(1):25–40.CrossRef Collins DC, Sundar R, Lim JSJ, Yap TA. Towards precision medicine in the clinic: from biomarker discovery to novel therapeutics. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2017;38(1):25–40.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Arnedos M, Soria JC, Andre F, Tursz T. Personalized treatments of cancer patients: a reality in daily practice, a costly dream or a shared vision of the future from the oncology community? Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40(10):1192–8.CrossRef Arnedos M, Soria JC, Andre F, Tursz T. Personalized treatments of cancer patients: a reality in daily practice, a costly dream or a shared vision of the future from the oncology community? Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40(10):1192–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Adunlin G, Diaby V, Montero AJ, Xiao H. Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1812–26.CrossRef Adunlin G, Diaby V, Montero AJ, Xiao H. Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1812–26.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Blinman P, King M, Norman R, Viney R, Stockler MR. Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology. Annals Oncol. 2012;23(5):1104–10.CrossRef Blinman P, King M, Norman R, Viney R, Stockler MR. Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology. Annals Oncol. 2012;23(5):1104–10.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Valentí V, Ramos J, Pérez C, et al. Adverse events from systemic treatment of cancer and patient-reported quality of life. JCSO. 2017;15(5):e256–e262262. Valentí V, Ramos J, Pérez C, et al. Adverse events from systemic treatment of cancer and patient-reported quality of life. JCSO. 2017;15(5):e256–e262262.
9.
go back to reference Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3.CrossRef Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Beusterien K, Grinspan J, Kuchuk I, Mazzarello S, Dent S, Gertler S, Bouganim N, Vandermeer L, Clemons M. Use of conjoint analysis to assess breast cancer patient preferences for chemotherapy side effects. Oncologist. 2014;19(2):127–34.CrossRef Beusterien K, Grinspan J, Kuchuk I, Mazzarello S, Dent S, Gertler S, Bouganim N, Vandermeer L, Clemons M. Use of conjoint analysis to assess breast cancer patient preferences for chemotherapy side effects. Oncologist. 2014;19(2):127–34.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S5–9.CrossRef Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S5–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Woodward RM, Menzin J, Neumann PJ. Quality-adjusted life years in cancer: pros, cons, and alternatives. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22(1):12–9.CrossRef Woodward RM, Menzin J, Neumann PJ. Quality-adjusted life years in cancer: pros, cons, and alternatives. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22(1):12–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kozminski MA, Neumann PJ, Nadler ES, Jankovic A, Ubel PA. How long and how well: oncologists’ attitudes toward the relative value of life-prolonging v. quality of life-enhancing treatments. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):380–5.CrossRef Kozminski MA, Neumann PJ, Nadler ES, Jankovic A, Ubel PA. How long and how well: oncologists’ attitudes toward the relative value of life-prolonging v. quality of life-enhancing treatments. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):380–5.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Greenberg D, Hammerman A, Vinker S, Shani A, Yermiahu Y, Neumann PJ. Which is more valuable, longer survival or better quality of life? Israeli oncologists’ and family physicians’ attitudes toward the relative value of new cancer and congestive heart failure interventions. Value Health. 2013;16(5):842–7.CrossRef Greenberg D, Hammerman A, Vinker S, Shani A, Yermiahu Y, Neumann PJ. Which is more valuable, longer survival or better quality of life? Israeli oncologists’ and family physicians’ attitudes toward the relative value of new cancer and congestive heart failure interventions. Value Health. 2013;16(5):842–7.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Dilla T, Lizan L, Paz S, et al. Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;10:1–7.PubMedPubMedCentral Dilla T, Lizan L, Paz S, et al. Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;10:1–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Broekhuizen H, IJzerman MJ, Hauber AB, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. Weighing clinical evidence using patient preferences: an application of probabilistic multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(3):259–69.CrossRef Broekhuizen H, IJzerman MJ, Hauber AB, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. Weighing clinical evidence using patient preferences: an application of probabilistic multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(3):259–69.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688.CrossRef Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Dolan P. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality–adjusted life years. Health Care Anal. 2001;9(1):65–766.CrossRef Dolan P. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality–adjusted life years. Health Care Anal. 2001;9(1):65–766.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kaplan RM, Babad YM. Balancing influence between actors in healthcare decision making. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:85.CrossRef Kaplan RM, Babad YM. Balancing influence between actors in healthcare decision making. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:85.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Increased survival time or better quality of life? Trade-off between benefits and adverse events in the systemic treatment of cancer
Authors
V. Valentí
J. Ramos
C. Pérez
L. Capdevila
I. Ruiz
L. Tikhomirova
M. Sánchez
I. Juez
M. Llobera
E. Sopena
J. Rubió
R. Salazar
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1699-048X
Electronic ISSN: 1699-3055
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-019-02216-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Clinical and Translational Oncology 6/2020 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