Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention?

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the effectiveness of chemoprevention (tamoxifen and raloxifene) in preventing breast cancer among women at high risk for the disease, uptake is low. The objective of this study was to determine the tradeoff preferences for various attributes associated with chemoprevention among women not currently taking the drugs.

Methods

We used rating-based conjoint analysis to evaluate the relative importance of a number of attributes associated with chemoprevention, including risk of side effects, drug effectiveness, time needed to take the drugs, and availability of a blood test to see if the drugs were working in an Internet sample of women. We generated mean importance values and part-worth utilities for all attribute levels associated with taking chemoprevention. We then used multivariable linear regression to examine attribute importance scores controlling for participant age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, educational level, and a family history of breast cancer.

Results

Overall interest in taking chemoprevention was low among the 1094 women included in the analytic sample, even for the scenario in which participants would receive the greatest benefit and fewest risks associated with taking the drugs. Time needed to take the pill for it to work and 5-year risk of breast cancer were the most important attributes driving tradeoff preferences between the chemoprevention scenarios.

Conclusions

Interest in taking chemoprevention among this sample of women at average risk was low. Addressing women’s concerns about the time needed to take chemoprevention for it to work may help clinicians improve uptake of the drugs among those likely to benefit.

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. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Freedman AN, Graubard BI, Rao SR, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ballard-Barbash R, Gail MH. Estimates of the number of US women who could benefit from tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(7):526–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bevers TB, Armstrong DK, Arun B, Carlson RW, Cowan KH, Daly MB, et al. Breast cancer risk reduction. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(10):1112–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chlebowski RT, Col N, Winer EP, Collyar DE, Cummings SR, Vogel VG, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(15):3328–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaplan CP, Haas JS, Pérez-Stable EJ, Gregorich SE, Somkin C, Des Jarlais G, et al. Breast cancer risk reduction options: awareness, discussion, and use among women from four ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark. 2006;15(1):162–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ropka ME, Keim J, Philbrick JT. Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):3090–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Melnikow J, Paterniti D, Azari R, Kuenneth C, Birch S, Kuppermann M, et al. Preferences of Women Evaluating Risks of Tamoxifen (POWER) study of preferences for tamoxifen for breast cancer risk reduction. Cancer. 2005;103(10):1996–2005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Nair V, Derry HA, McClure JB, Greene S, et al. Women’s decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(3):613–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Waters EA, McNeel TS, Stevens WM, Freedman AN. Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention in 2010. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(2):875–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Armstrong K, Quistberg DA, Micco E, Domchek S, Guerra C. Prescription of tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention by primary care physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(20):2260–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, et al. Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: preventing breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3(6):696–706.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(18):1371–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooke AL, Metge C, Lix L, Prior HJ, Leslie WD. Tamoxifen use and osteoporotic fracture risk: a population-based analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nichols HB, DeRoo LA, Scharf DR, Sandler DP. Risk-benefit profiles of women using tamoxifen for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bastian LA, Lipkus IM, Kuchibhatla MN, Weng HH, Halabi S, Ryan PD, et al. Women’s interest in chemoprevention for breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(13):1639–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bober SL, Hoke LA, Duda RB, Regan MM, Tung NM. Decision-making about tamoxifen in women at high risk for breast cancer: clinical and psychological factors. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(24):4951–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fasching PA, Von Minckwitz G, Fischer T, Kaufmann M, Schultz-Zehden B, Beck H, et al. The impact of breast cancer awareness and socioeconomic status on willingness to receive breast cancer prevention drugs. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;101(1):95–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Port ER, Montgomery LL, Heerdt AS, Borgen PI. Patient reluctance toward tamoxifen use for breast cancer primary prevention. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8(7):580–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heisey R, Pimlott N, Clemons M, Cummings S, Drummond N. Women’s views on chemoprevention of breast cancer: qualitative study. Can Fam Physician. 2006;52:624–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Wei MY, Ito MK, Cohen JD, Brinton EA, Jacobson TA. Predictors of statin adherence, switching, and discontinuation in the USAGE survey: understanding the use of statins in America and gaps in patient education. J Clin Lipidol. 2013;7(5):472–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nantz E, Liu-Seifert H, Skljarevski V. Predictors of premature discontinuation of treatment in multiple disease states. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2009;3:31–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mulley AG, Sepucha K. Making good decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(1):52–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Owens WL, Gallagher TJ, Kincheloe MJ, Ruetten VL. Implementation in a large health system of a program to identify women at high risk for breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(2):85–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Evans DG, Barwell J, Eccles DM, Collins A, Izatt L, Jacobs C, et al. The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(5):442.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hutchins R, Viera AJ, Sheridan SL, Pignone MP. Quantifying the utility of taking pills for cardiovascular prevention. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(2):155–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964;1:1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell E, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2001;5(5):1–186.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Curry J. Understanding conjoint analysis in 15 minutes. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tanner AE, Katzenstein JM, Zimet GD, Cox DS, Cox AD, Fortenberry JD. Vaginal microbicide preferences among midwestern urban adolescent women. J Adolesc Health. 2008;43(4):349–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cai QF, Wan F, Dong XY, Liao XH, Zheng J, Wang R, et al. Fertility clinicians and infertile patients in China have different preferences in fertility care. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(4):712–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Orme B. Formulating attributes and levels in conjoint analysis. Sequin: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fagerlin A, Dillard AJ, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Pitsch R, McClure JB, et al. Women’s interest in taking tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: response to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(3):681–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Wouters H, Van Dijk L, Van Geffen ECG, Gardarsdottir H, Stiggelbout AM, Bouvy ML. Primary-care patients’ trade-off preferences with regard to antidepressants. Psychol Med. 2014 (Epub 7 Jan).

  35. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(4):535–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dillard AJ, Scherer L, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, McClure JB, et al. Breast cancer anxiety’s associations with responses to a chemoprevention decision aid. Soc Sci Med. 2013;77:13–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sedrakyan A, Shih C. Improving depiction of benefits and harms: analyses of studies of well-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Med Care. 2007;45(10 Suppl 2):S23–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Pignone MP. Randomized trial of presenting absolute v. relative risk reduction in the elicitation of patient values for heart disease prevention with conjoint analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(2):167–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PKJ, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Mann DM, Allegrante JP, Natarajan S, Halm EA, Charlson M. Predictors of adherence to statins for primary prevention. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2007;21(4):311–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C. A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther. 2001;23(8):1296–310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Reginster JY, Rabenda V, Neuprez A. Adherence, patient preference and dosing frequency: understanding the relationship. Bone. 2006;38(4 Suppl 1):S2–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Orme BK, Alpert MI, Christensen E. Assessing the validity of conjoint analysis—continued. Sequin: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Louviere J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Kaplan CP, Kim SE, Wong ST, Sawaya GF, Walsh JME, Pérez-Stable EJ. Willingness to use tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer among diverse women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):357–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Campitelli MA, Chiarelli AM, Mirea L, Stewart L, Glendon G, Ritvo P, et al. Adherence to breast and ovarian cancer screening recommendations for female relatives from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2011;20(6):492–500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design stratgies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Nair V, Strecher V, Fagerlin A, Ubel P, Resnicow K, Murphy S, et al. Screening experiments and the use of fractional factorial designs in behavioral intervention research. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1354–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Orme B. Interpreting conjoint analysis data. Software Research Paper Series 2002. Sequin: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2002.

  50. Wouters H, Maatman GA, Van Dijk L, Bouvy ML, Vree R, Van Geffen ECG, et al. Trade-off preferences regarding adjuvant endocrine therapy among women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(9):2324–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Persky S, Kaphingst KA, Condit CM, McBride CM. Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review. Genet Med. 2007;9(11):727–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Contributions

Angela Fagerlin, Holly Witteman, Christine Holmberg, and Sarah Hawley conceptualized and designed the study, including the online rating-based conjoint exercise. Kathryn Martinez and Holly Witteman conducted data analysis. All authors assisted in interpreting the results. The complete first draft of the paper was written by Kathryn Martinez, with assistance from Angela Fagerlin and Sarah Hawley. All authors commented on the first complete draft as well as subsequent versions. Kathryn Martinez acts as guarantor for the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ann Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Building 16, 4th Floor, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA

    Kathryn A. Martinez, Angela Fagerlin & Sarah T. Hawley

  2. Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Angela Fagerlin & Sarah T. Hawley

  3. Department of Family and Emergency Medicine and Office of Education and Continuing Professional Development, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada

    Holly O. Witteman

  4. Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec City, QC, Canada

    Holly O. Witteman

  5. Berlin School of Public Health, Berlin, Germany

    Christine Holmberg

Authors
  1. Kathryn A. Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela Fagerlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Holly O. Witteman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Holmberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah T. Hawley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn A. Martinez.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institutes for Health (R01 CA87595 and P50 CA101451). Dr. Martinez was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Conflicts of Interest

Kathryn Martinez, Angela Fagerlin, Holly Witteman, Christine Holmberg, and Sarah Hawley have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinez, K.A., Fagerlin, A., Witteman, H.O. et al. What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention?. Patient 9, 149–159 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0134-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0134-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation