Skip to main content

Patient Preferences for Breast Cancer Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research volume 12, pages 559–569 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Understanding how patients value different characteristics of an intervention and make trade-offs in a therapy choice context with potential benefit and possible harm may result in decisions for which a better reflected value is delivered. This systematic review summarizes patient preferences for breast cancer treatments elicited by discrete choice experiments (DCE).

Methodology

The electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science were last searched on May 9, 2019 without restrictions regarding language and time of publication. Original studies reporting patient preferences related to breast cancer treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, chemotherapy or palliative care) elicited by DCE were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the relative importance and trade-offs of the treatment attributes of each study was reported.

Results

Five studies conducted in Japan, Thailand, USA and the Netherlands with 146–298 participants evaluated preferences regarding chemotherapy regimens for advanced/metastatic disease, and breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The attributes with major relative effects on preferences were greater survival, better aesthetic result of the surgery, and lower side effects and complication rates. Patients would trade a better aesthetic result to minimize complication rates, and, in advanced disease, the willingness to pay was greater for gains in survival and to avoid some severe adverse events.

Conclusion

Despite the relative lack of evidence in this specific context, our review shows that breast cancer patients naturally value greater benefit and, in scenarios of advanced and metastatic disease, are willing to face risks of some side effects for gains in survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Data availability

Data are available on request to the authors.

References

  1. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J. 2000;320:1530–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bridges JF, 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;14:403–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform health care decision making: a user guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Politi MC, Studts JL, Hayslip JW. Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know? Oncologist. 2012;17:91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kane HL, Halpern MT, Squiers LB, Treiman KA, McCormack LA. Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:377–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013.

  7. Harrison M, Milbers K, Hudson M, Bansback N. Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e014719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fraenkel L. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decision making. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:80S–93S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Swift JK, Callahan JL. The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65:368–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Omori Y, Enatsu S, Cai Z, Ishiguro H. Patients’ preferences for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments in Japan. Breast Cancer. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00965-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ngorsuraches S, Thongkeaw K. Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments. Springer Plus. 2015;4:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DiBonaventura MC, Copher R, Basurto E, Faria C, Lorenzo R. Patient preferences and treatment adherence among women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7:386–96.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lalla D, Carlton R, Santos E, Bramley T, D’Souza A. Willingness to pay to avoid metastatic breast cancer treatment side-effects: results from a conjoint analysis. Springerplus. 2014;3:350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Damen THC, de Bekker-Grob EW, Mureau MAM, Menke-Pluijmers MB, Seynaeve C, Hofer SOP, et al. Patients’ preferences for breast reconstruction: a discrete choice experiment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health. 2009;12:S10–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang Y, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, GRADE Guidelines: 19, et al. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;111:83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported: an update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3:249–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JF. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:877–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. Patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2017;10:553–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Spaich S, Kinder J, Hetjens S, Fuxius S, Gerhardt A, Sütterlin M. Patient preferences regarding chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer—a conjoint analysis for common taxanes. Front Oncol. 2018;8:535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Storm-Dickerson T, Das L, Gabriel A, Gitlin M, Farias J, Macarios D. What drives patient choice: preferences for approaches to surgical treatments for breast cancer beyond traditional clinical benchmarks. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(4):e1746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ballinger TJ, Kassem N, Shen F, Jiang G, Smith ML, Railey E, Howell J, White CB, Schneider BP. Discerning the clinical relevance of biomarkers in early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164(1):89–97.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith ML, White CB, Railey E, Sledge GW Jr. Examining and predicting drug preferences of patients with metastatic breast cancer: using conjoint analysis to examine attributes of paclitaxel and capecitabine. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:83–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Beusterien K, Grinspan J, Kuchuk I, Mazzarello S, Dent S, Gertler S, Bouganim N, Vandermeer L, Clemons M. Use of conjoint analysis to assess breast cancer patient preferences for chemotherapy side effects. Oncologist. 2014;19(2):127–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Beusterien K, Grinspan J, Tencer T, Brufsky A, Visovsky C. Patient preferences for chemotherapies used in breast cancer. Int J Womens Health. 2012;4:279–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer, Rua Marquês de Pombal 125, 7º andar, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP: 20.230-240, Brazil

    Renata Leborato Guerra, Luciana Castaneda, Rita de Cássia Ribeiro de Albuquerque, Flávia de Miranda Corrêa & Ricardo Ribeiro Alves Fernandes

  2. Integrated Library System, Teaching Coordination of the Brazilian National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Camila Belo Tavares Ferreira

  3. Populational Research Division of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Liz Maria de Almeida

Authors
  1. Renata Leborato Guerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luciana Castaneda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rita de Cássia Ribeiro de Albuquerque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Camila Belo Tavares Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Flávia de Miranda Corrêa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ricardo Ribeiro Alves Fernandes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Liz Maria de Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RLG contributed to the conception and design of the work, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and drafted the article; LC and RCRA contributed to data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript writing; CBTF contributed to data collection and critical revision of the manuscript; FMC, RRAF and LMA contributed to the conception and design of the work and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renata Leborato Guerra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors Renata Leborato Guerra, Luciana Castaneda, Rita de Cássia Ribeiro de Albuquerque, Camila Belo Tavares Ferreira, Flávia de Miranda Corrêa, Ricardo Ribeiro Alves Fernandes and Liz Maria de Almeida declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was supported by the 54° technical cooperation term between the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer/Ministry of Health and the Pan-American Health Organization/World Health Organization.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guerra, R.L., Castaneda, L., de Albuquerque, R.d.C.R. et al. Patient Preferences for Breast Cancer Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments. Patient 12, 559–569 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00375-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00375-w