Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 110-115

  Liu, G ^a   Franssen, E ^a   Fitch, M I ^a   Warner, E ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; TEGAFUR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PALLIATIVE THERAPY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTESTINE ABSORPTION; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; TASTE PREFERENCE;

EID: 0031017851     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.1.110     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Rowinsky EK, Noe DA, Trump DL, et al: Pharmacokinetic bioavailability and feasibility study of oral vinorelbine in patients with solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 12:1754-1763, 1994
2. Pazdur R, Lassere Y, Rhodes V, et al: Phase II trial of uracil and Tegafur plus oral leucovorin: An effective oral regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 12:2296-2300, 1994
3. Sole LA, Albanell J, Bellmount J, et al: Phase II trial of an all-oral regimen of Tegafur and folinic acid in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 75:831-835, 1995
4. Kelland LR, McKeage MJ: New platinum agents: A comparison in ovarian cancers. Drug Aging 5:85-95, 1994
5. Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB, et al: On the receiving end -Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 19:203-208, 1983
6. Khoo KS, Ang PT, Lim AG: Common toxicities of cancer chemotherapy. Singapore Med J 34:418-420, 1993
7. Borst CG, de Kruif AT, van Dam FS, et al: Totally implantable venous access ports: The patient's point of view. Cancer Nurs 378-381, 1992
8. Winters V, Peters B, Coila S, et al: A trial with a new peripherally implanted vascular access device. Oncol Nurs For 17:891-896, 1990
9. Claessen KA, deVries JT, Huisman SJ, et al: Long term venous access with a Hickman catheter: Complications and patient satisfaction. Neth J Surg 42:47-49, 1990
10. Bothe A Jr, Piccione W, Ambrosino JJ, et al: Implantable central venous access system. Am J Surg 147:565-569, 1984
11. Hall P, Cedermark B, Swedenborg J: Implantable catheter system for long term intravenous chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol 41:39-41, 1989
12. Hainsworth JD, Johnson DH, Frazier SR, et al: Chronic daily administration of oral etoposide in refractory lymphoma. Eur J Cancer 26:818-821, 1990
13. Carney DN: The pharmacology of intravenous and oral etoposide. Cancer 67:299-302, 1991 (suppl 1)
14. Slevin ML: The clinical pharmacology of etoposide. Cancer 67:319-329, 1991 (suppl 1)
15. Zhou XJ, Zhou-Pan XR, Favre R, et al: Relative bioavailability of two oral formulations of navelbine in cancer patients. Biopharm Drug Dispos 15:577-586, 1994
16. Lebovits AH, Strain JJ, Schleifer SJ, et al: Patient non-compliance with self-administrated chemotherapy. Cancer 65:17-22, 1990
17. Levine AM, Richardson JL, Marks G, et al: Compliance with oral drug treatment in patients with hemotologic malignancy. J Clin Oncol 5:1469-1476, 1987
18. Lee CR, Nicholson PW, Souhami RL, et al: Patient compliance with prolonged low dose oral etoposide for small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 67:630-634, 1993
19. Lee CR, Nicholson PW, Souhami RL, et al: Patient compliance with oral chemotherapy as assessed by a novel electronic technique. J Clin Oncol 10:1007-1013, 1992
20. Kearsley JH: Some basic guidelines in the use of chemotherapy for patients with incurable malignancy. Palliat Med 8:11-17, 1994
21. Gough IR, Dalgleish LI: What value is given to quality of life assessment by health professionals considering response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer? Cancer 68:220-225, 1991
22. Lawrence W Jr: Patient selection for clinical trials: Risks versus benefits and quality of life issues. Cancer 72:2798-2800, 1993 (suppl)
23. Tattersall MH: Achievable goals and relevant endpoints in cancer treatment. Cancer Detect Prev 14:679-681, 1990
24. Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Matchar DB: Assessing quality of life and preferences in the seriously ill using utility theory. J Clin Epidemiol 43:73S-77S, 1990 (suppl)
25. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 40:593-603, 1987
26. Legg-England S, Evans J: Patients' choices and perceptions after an invitation to participate in treatment decisions. Soc Sci Med 34:1217-1225, 1992
27. Wallston KA, Smith RA, King JE: Desire for control and choice of antiemetic treatment for cancer chemotherapy. West J Nurs Res 13:12-23, 1991
28. Thompson SC, Pitts JS, Schwanskovsky L: Preferences for involvement in medical decision-making: Situational and demographic features. Patient Educ Couns 22:133-140, 1993
29. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC, et al: Patient's willingness to enter clinical trials: Measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. Soc Sci Med 32:35-42, 1991
30. McQuellon RP, Muss HB, Hoffman SL, et al: Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:858-868, 1995
31. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, et al: Attitudes to chemotherapy: Comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses and general public. Br Med J 300:1458-1460, 1990
32. Loehrer PJ Sr: Palliative therapy: Extensive small cell lung cancer. Semn Oncol 22:40-44, 1995 (suppl 3)
33. Overmoyer BA: Chemotherapeutic palliative approaches in the treatment of breast cancer. Semin Oncol 22:2-9, 1995 (suppl 3)
34. Vose JM: Chemotherapeutic palliative approaches in the treatment of lymphoma. Semin Oncol 22:53-57, 1995 (suppl 3)