Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast cancer-related preferences among women with and without BRCA mutations

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preference ratings are used to quantify quality of life in analyses used for health care policymaking. Subjects indicated how many years of their life expectancy they would trade to avoid BRCA mutations, breast/ovarian cancer, and five preventive measures including prophylactic surgery, annual mammograms, and annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Among 243 respondents, both the 83 women with mutations and the 160 controls rated mammography highest (most favorably), MRI next highest, having a child with a mutation lowest, and ovarian cancer next lowest. Controls rated prophylactic surgery higher than cancer (P < 0.01), but women with mutations did not. In logistic regression, controls were twice as willing as women with mutations to trade time except for screening modalities; younger, lower-income, and non-white women were more willing to trade time than older, higher-income, and white women. Our findings support the use of average-risk individuals’ time trade-off preference ratings for health care policy development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D et al (1994) A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 266(5182):66–71. doi:10.1126/science.7545954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J et al (1995) Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature 378(6559):789–792. doi:10.1038/378789a0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Thomason D, Hershman D, Heitjan DF, Neugut AI (2002) Effect of prevention strategies on survival and quality-adjusted survival of women with BRCA1/2 mutations: an updated decision analysis. J Clin Oncol 20(10):2520–2529. doi:10.1200/JCO.2002.10.101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kauff ND (2008) Is it time to stratify for BRCA mutation status in therapeutic trials in ovarian cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(1):9–10. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.0244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292(11):1317–1325. doi:10.1001/jama.292.11.1317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson K, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med 144(6):397–406

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Calderon-Margalit R, Paltiel O (2004) Prevention of breast cancer in women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a critical review of the literature. Int J Cancer 112(3):357–364. doi:10.1002/ijc.20429

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cappelli M, Surh L, Humphreys L et al (2001) Measuring women’s preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual Life Res 10(7):595–607. doi:10.1023/A:1013123915272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fallowfield LJ (2004) Evolution of breast cancer treatments: current options and quality-of-life considerations. Eur J Oncol Nurs 8(Suppl 2):S75–S82. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2004.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lindley C, McCune JS, Thomason TE et al (1999) Perception of chemotherapy side effects cancer versus noncancer patients. Cancer Pract 7(2):59–65. doi:10.1046/j.1523-5394.1999.07205.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Steinbrook R (2008) Saying no isn’t NICE–The travails of Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N Engl J Med 359(19):1977–1980. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0806862

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Torrance GW (1987) Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 40(6):593–603. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90019-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaplan RM (2003) The significance of quality of life in health care. Qual Life Res 12(suppl 1):3–16. doi:10.1023/A:1023547632545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN (2007) Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 25(2):93–106. doi:10.2165/00019053-200725020-00003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Torrance GW (2006) Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics 24(11):1069–1078. doi:10.2165/00019053-200624110-00004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M (eds) (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine New York. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ et al (1990) Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ 300(6737):1458–1460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E (2008) Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health 11(1):76–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Roosmalen MS, Stalmeier PF, Verhoef LC et al (2004) Randomised trial of a decision aid and its timing for women being tested for a BRCA1/2 mutation. Br J Cancer 90(2):333–342. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Torrance GW, Feeny D (1989) Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5(4):559–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Sundararajan V et al (1999) The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci Am 5(5):283–292

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM et al (2006) Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295(20):2374–2384. doi:10.1001/jama.295.20.2374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Roosmalen MS, Verhoef LC, Stalmeier PF (2002) Decision analysis of prophylactic surgery or screening for BRCA1 mutation carriers: a more prominent role for oophorectomy. J Clin Oncol 20(8):2092–2100. doi:10.1200/JCO.2002.08.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sackett DL, Torrance GW (1978) The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 31(11):697–704. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(78)90072-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hatcher MB, Fallowfield L, A’Hern R (2001) The psychosocial impact of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: prospective study using questionnaires and semistructured interviews. BMJ 7278:76. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7278.76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Emanuel EJ, Fuchs VR, Garber AM (2007) Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA 298:1323–1325. doi:10.1001/jama.298.11.1323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kirschner N, Pauker SG, Stubbs JW et al (2008) Information on cost-effectiveness: an essential product of a national comparative effectiveness program. Ann Intern Med 148(12):956–961

    Google Scholar 

  28. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE et al (1996) The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276(14):1172–1177. doi:10.1001/jama.276.14.1172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Supported in part by grant no. CRTG-98-260-01 from the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA (Spin Odyssey), and the Avon Breast Cancer Research and Care Program, and the Women-at-Risk Program

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, and Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, R734, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Victor R. Grann

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Priya Patel

  3. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Anubha Bharthuar

  4. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Judith S. Jacobson

  5. Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ellen Warner & Kimberly A. Hill

  6. University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Kristin Anderson

  7. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Eiran Warner

  8. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Wei-Yann Tsai

  9. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, and Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Alfred I. Neugut & Dawn Hershman

Authors
  1. Victor R. Grann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priya Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anubha Bharthuar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Judith S. Jacobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ellen Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kristin Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eiran Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wei-Yann Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kimberly A. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alfred I. Neugut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Dawn Hershman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor R. Grann.

Additional information

Disclosure statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose: An initial version of the study Abstract # 1708 was presented at the ASCO annual meeting 2007 and cited in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOC 105 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grann, V.R., Patel, P., Bharthuar, A. et al. Breast cancer-related preferences among women with and without BRCA mutations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119, 177–184 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0373-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0373-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation