Patient preferences for features of HER2-targeted treatment of advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a discrete-choice experiment study

[1]  Mafalda Oliveira,et al.  Brain Metastases in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Current and Novel Treatment Strategies , 2021, Cancers.

[2]  O. Will,et al.  Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Attributes of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic HR Positive/HER2 Negative Breast Cancer: Discrete Choice Experiment and Best–Worst Scaling , 2020, Patient preference and adherence.

[3]  Versione,et al.  Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events , 2020, Definitions.

[4]  M. Ryan,et al.  Survey modes comparison in contingent valuation: Internet panels and mail surveys. , 2019, Health economics.

[5]  C. Redfern,et al.  Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201a) in patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine: a dose-expansion, phase 1 study. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.

[6]  S. Tolaney,et al.  HER2-positive breast cancer: new therapeutic frontiers and overcoming resistance , 2019, Therapeutic advances in medical oncology.

[7]  M. Sütterlin,et al.  Patient Preferences Regarding Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer—A Conjoint Analysis for Common Taxanes , 2018, Front. Oncol..

[8]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries , 2018, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[9]  I. Micaily,et al.  Metastatic Hormone and Her-2 Positive Breast Cancer: A Community Approach , 2018, Open Access Journal of Oncology and Medicine.

[10]  K. Hunt,et al.  Bioscore: A Staging System for Breast Cancer Patients that Reflects the Prognostic Significance of Underlying Tumor Biology , 2017, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[11]  Domino Determann,et al.  Impact of Survey Administration Mode on the Results of a Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiment: Online and Paper Comparison. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[12]  M. Hiligsmann,et al.  Patients’ Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2017, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[13]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[14]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis , 2015 .

[15]  R. Copher,et al.  Patient preferences and treatment adherence among women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. , 2014, American health & drug benefits.

[16]  T. Bramley,et al.  Willingness to pay to avoid metastatic breast cancer treatment side effects: results from a conjoint analysis , 2014, SpringerPlus.

[17]  G. Sledge,et al.  Examining and predicting drug preferences of patients with metastatic breast cancer: using conjoint analysis to examine attributes of paclitaxel and capecitabine , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[18]  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.

[19]  John M. Rose,et al.  Combining RP and SP data: biases in using the nested logit ‘trick’: contrasts with flexible mixed logit incorporating panel and scale effects , 2008 .

[20]  Tiago Domingos,et al.  Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews , 2007 .

[21]  P. Ellis,et al.  Adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer , 2005, The Lancet.

[22]  H. Muss,et al.  Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a study of women with early-stage breast cancer. , 1995, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[24]  C. Hoge,et al.  THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE , 1977, The Lancet.

[25]  Lawyer,et al.  The Japanese , 2017 .

[26]  E. Rutgers,et al.  Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[27]  Masayuki Yoshida,et al.  The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for pathological diagnosis of breast cancer , 2014, Breast Cancer.

[28]  Deborah Marshall,et al.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[29]  V. Kaklamani,et al.  HER2-Positive Breast Cancer , 2012, Drugs.

[30]  J. Nielsen.  Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews , 2011 .