Use of conjoint analysis to assess breast cancer patient preferences for chemotherapy side effects.

OBJECTIVE Our objective was to evaluate preferences associated with grade I/II and grade III/IV chemotherapy side effects among breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. We also assessed trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment side effects and the route and schedule of treatment administration. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer completed a one-time Web survey. Conjoint analysis was used to elicit preferences for 17 grade I/II and III/IV side effects associated with available chemotherapies and regimens. In the analysis, the risk of each side effect was increased by 5%, holding all others constant, and the respective impact on patient preferences was identified. RESULTS A total of 102 women participated (mean age 54 ± 11). Among the grade I/II side effects, a 5% reduction in the risk of sensory neuropathy, nausea, and motor neuropathy had the highest impact on preferences. Among grade III/IV side effects, motor neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, and myalgia made the most difference. An oral twice-daily regimen was most preferred; however, patients were willing to receive an intravenous regimen relative to oral to avoid an increased risk of 5% in the majority of side effects. Avoiding an increased chance of grade III/IV motor neuropathy was associated with willingness to tolerate one of the least preferred administration schedules. CONCLUSION This study identified relative preferences among both mild/moderate to severe side effects from the patient perspective. Patients appear to be willing to make trade-offs between side effects and different regimens. These findings may help to inform medical decision-making processes.

[1]  Roger L. Brown,et al.  Patient preferences in choosing chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. , 2005, The journal of supportive oncology.

[2]  D. Bodurka,et al.  Rankings and symptom assessments of side effects from chemotherapy: insights from experienced patients with ovarian cancer , 2005, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[3]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  C. N. Coleman,et al.  CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. , 2003, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[5]  John F P Bridges,et al.  Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. , 2012, Lung cancer.

[6]  Patient preferences for chemotherapies used in breast cancer , 2012, International journal of women's health.

[7]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[8]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  K. Beusterien,et al.  Population preference values for treatment outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a cross-sectional utility study , 2010, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[10]  J. Wardle,et al.  A patient preference study comparing raltitrexed ('Tomudex') and bolus or infusional 5-fluorouracil regimens in advanced colorectal cancer: influence of side-effects and administration attributes. , 1999, European journal of cancer care.

[11]  B. Fitzgerald,et al.  Incidence of taxane-induced pain and distress in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a retrospective, outcomes-based survey. , 2010, Current oncology.

[12]  R. Carlson,et al.  Goals and objectives in the management of metastatic breast cancer. , 2003, The oncologist.

[13]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[14]  E. Warner,et al.  Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.