Patient preferences regarding side effects of chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: do they change over time?

OBJECTIVE The goals of this study were to: (1) systematically evaluate patient preferences regarding side effects of high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support for treatment of advanced ovarian cancer; and (2) assess whether patients' preferences changed over time. METHODS Forty patients with stage III or IV disease were enrolled in this study. Patients' preferences regarding 12 health states (side effects) were assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) methods during mobilization chemotherapy (T(1)) and 6-7 weeks later after high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant (T(2)). Each assessment involved a 45-min interview conducted at the patient's bedside. RESULTS The three most preferred health states were no evidence of disease (NED), a chemotherapy with few or no side effects, and alopecia, while the least preferred health states were chemotherapy with multiple severe side effects, hepatotoxicity, and nausea and vomiting. These results were observed at both T(1) and T(2) using both preference assessment methods. Pancytopenia scores significantly increased from T(1) to T(2) using the VAS method (P < 0.05), but decreased using the TTO method. CONCLUSIONS Chemotherapy-experienced women with ovarian cancer have consistent preferences for the best and worst health states associated with the side effects of chemotherapy. Patients are more averse to nausea and vomiting than many other symptoms. Women's perceptions of pancytopenia may be dependent upon the number of prior cycles of chemotherapy and site of care for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia.

[1]  S. Jansen,et al.  Stability of Patients’ Preferences for Chemotherapy , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  D. Feeny,et al.  Visual Analog Scales , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  A M Stiggelbout,et al.  Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  F. Bertucci,et al.  High-dose melphalan-based chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation after second look laparotomy in patients with chemosensitive advanced ovarian carcinoma: long-term results , 2000, Bone Marrow Transplantation.

[5]  Papatheofanis Fj Utility evaluations for Markov states of lung cancer for PET-based disease management. , 2000 .

[6]  M. Sprangers,et al.  Adaptation to changing health : response shift in quality-of-life research , 2000 .

[7]  D. Fishman,et al.  Perceptions of cisplatin-related toxicity among ovarian cancer patients and gynecologic oncologists. , 1998, Gynecologic oncology.

[8]  A. Potosky,et al.  Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[9]  D. Provenzale,et al.  Patient preferences and quality of life associated with colorectal cancer screening. , 1997, The American journal of gastroenterology.

[10]  A. Oza,et al.  Cost-utility analysis of paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. , 1997, Gynecologic oncology.

[11]  G. Steineck,et al.  Similarities and differences in assessing nausea on a verbal category scale and a visual analogue scale. , 1997, Cancer nursing.

[12]  P. Butow,et al.  On the receiving end. V: Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. , 1996, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[13]  J. Habbema,et al.  Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities. , 1995, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  David Feeny,et al.  Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation , 1992 .

[15]  D. Feeny,et al.  Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years , 1989, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[16]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[17]  S B Kaye,et al.  On the receiving end--patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. , 1983, European journal of cancer & clinical oncology.

[18]  R. A. Groeneveld,et al.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics (2nd ed). , 1981 .

[19]  D. Wolfe,et al.  Nonparametric Statistical Methods. , 1974 .

[20]  W. J. Conover,et al.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics , 1972 .