Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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):391–399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5(1):1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng TF, Wang JD, Uen WC (2012) Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant goserelin (Zoladex) and adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal women with breast cancer. BMC Cancer 12:33. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, Dewilde S, Watkins J (2006) Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95(6):683–690. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A (2001) Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 19(11):1091–1102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Beusterien K, Grinspan J, Tencer T, Brufsky A, Visovsky C (2012) Patient preferences for chemotherapies used in breast cancer. Int J Women’s Health 4:279–287. doi:10.2147/ijwh.s31331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fu AZ, Kattan MW (2008) Utilities should not be multiplied: evidence from the preference-based scores in the United States. Med Care 46(9):984–990. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181791a9c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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):189–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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):203–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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):59–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL (2001) An internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(2):370–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the patients and their families for their help with this project. Funding for this study was received in the form of an unrestricted educational Grant from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

Conflict of interest

Susan Dent—speaking honoraria (Eisai). There is no conflict of interest for the other authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa General Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    I. Kuchuk, L. Vandermeer, S. Gertler, S. F. Dent, X. Song, R. Segal, S. Mazzarello, F. Crawley & M. Clemons

  2. Division of Medical Oncology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    N. Bouganim

  3. Oxford Outcomes Inc., Bethesda, MD, USA

    K. Beusterien & J. Grinspan

  4. Toronto, Canada

    G. Dranitsaris

  5. Division of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Box 912, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

    M. Clemons

Authors
  1. I. Kuchuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Bouganim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Beusterien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Grinspan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Vandermeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Gertler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. F. Dent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. X. Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. R. Segal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S. Mazzarello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. F. Crawley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. G. Dranitsaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. M. Clemons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Clemons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuchuk, I., Bouganim, N., Beusterien, K. et al. Preference weights for chemotherapy side effects from the perspective of women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 142, 101–107 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2727-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2727-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation