Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A conjoint analysis

Lung Cancer

Volumn 77, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 224-231

  Bridges, John F P ^a   Mohamed, Ateesha F ^b   Finnern, Henrik W ^c   Woehl, Anette ^d   Hauber, A Brett ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^c BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC   (United States)

^d BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Benefit risk assessment; Choice behaviour; Non small cell lung cancer; Patient preferences; Progression free survival

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; ARTICLE; CONJOINT ANALYSIS; DIARRHEA; DISEASE SEVERITY; FATIGUE; FEMALE; FEVER; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFECTION; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAUSEA AND VOMITING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RASH; RISK FACTOR; SELF REPORT; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ADULT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFUSIONS, PARENTERAL; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84861719741     PISSN: 01695002     EISSN: 18728332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.01.016     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Parkin D., Bray F., Ferlay J., Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. Cancer J Clin 2005, 55:74-108.
2. American Cancer Society (ACS) Lung cancer (non-small cell) 2010, Available at, [accessed 16.08.11]. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003115-pdf.
3. American Cancer Society (ACS). Lung cancer non-small cell: overview. Available at: [accessed 16.08.11]. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003060-pdf.pdf.
4. ®). Health professional version 2011, Available at:, [accessed 29.04.11]. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/non-small-cell-lung/healthprofessional.
5. Soria J.C., Massard C., Le Chevalier T. Should progression-free survival be the primary measure of efficacy for advanced NSCLC therapy. Ann Oncol 2010, 21:2324-2332.
6. Miller V.A., O'Connor P., Soh C., Kabbinavar F. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb trial (ATLAS) comparing bevacizumab (B) therapy with or without erlotinib (E) after completion of chemotherapy with B for first-line treatment of locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(Suppl; Abstr LBA8002):18s. for the ATLAS Investigators.
7. Shepherd F.A., Dancey J., Ramlau R., Mattson K., Gralla R., O'Rourke M., et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18:2095-2103. Cited in: Fallowfield LJ, Harper P. Health-related quality of life in patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2005;48:365-77.
8. Krzakowski M., Ramlau R., Jassem J., Szczesna A., Zatloukal P., Von Pawel J., et al. Phase III trial comparing vinflunine with docetaxel in second-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:2167-2173.
9. Mok T.S., Wu Y.L., Thongprasert S., Yang C.H., Chu D.T., Saijo N., et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009, 361:947-957.
10. Hubbard G., Kidd L., Donaghy E. Preferences for involvement in treatment decision making of patients with cancer: a review of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2008, 12:299-318.
11. Bridges J., Onukwugha E., Johnson F., Hauber A. Patient preference methods - a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect 2007, 13:4-7.
12. Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003, 2:213-224.
13. Ryan M., Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000, 320:1530-1533.
14. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York.
15. Bridges J., Jones C. Patient based health technology assessment: aA vision of what might one day be possible. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23:30-35.
16. Blinman P., McLachlan S., Nowak A.K., Duric V.M., Brown C., Wright G., et al. Lung cancer clinicians' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: what makes it worthwhile?. Lung Cancer 2011, 72:213-218.
17. Blinman P., Alam M., Duric V., McLachlan S., Stockler M.R. Patients' preferences for chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Lung Cancer 2010, 69:141-147.
18. Silvestri G., Pritchard R., Welch H.G. Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: descriptive study based on scripted interviews. BMJ 1998, 317:771-775.
19. Brundage M.D., Davidson J.R., Mackillop W.J. Trading treatment toxicity for survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:330-340.
20. Dorman S., Hayes J., Pease N. What do patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer want from their treatments. Palliat Med 2009, 23:594-600.
21. Dubey S., Brown R.L., Esmond S.L., Bowers B.J., Healy J.M., Schiller J.H. Patient preferences in choosing chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Support Oncol 2005, 3:149-154.
22. Hirose T., Horichi N., Ohmori T., Kusumoto S., Sugiyama T., Shirai T., et al. Patients preferences in chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Intern Med 2005, 44:107-113.
23. Weeks J.C., Cook E.F., O'Day S.J., Peterson L.M., Wenger N., Reding D., et al. Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA 1998, 279:1709-1714.
24. Bridges J.F.P., Hauber A.B., Marshall D., Lloyd A., Prosser L.A., Regier D.A., 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, 14:403-411.
25. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
26. Thurstone L.L. Law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev 1927, 34:273-286.
27. Ryan M., Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003, 2:55-64.
28. Bridges J.F.P., Kinter E.T., Kidane L., Heinzen R.R., McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient 2008, 1(4):273-282.
29. Marshall D., Bridges J., Hauber A.B., Cameron R., Donnally 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, 3:249-256.
30. National Cancer Institute Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE), Version 4.02 2009, Available at:, [accessed 13.09.11]. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm.
31. Basch E., Iasonos A., McDonough T., Barz A., Culkin A., Kris M.G., et al. Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 2006, 7:903-909.
32. Basch E., Artz D., Dulko D., Scher K., Sabbatini P., Hensley M., et al. Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:3552-3561.
33. Bridges J., Kinter E., Schmeding A., Rudolph I., Mühlbacher A. Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks. Patient 2011, 4:267-275.
34. Hauber A.B., Mohamed A.F., Johnson F.R., Oyelowo O., Curtis B.H., Coon C. Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Qual Life Res 2010, 19(5):701-709.
35. Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint and graphical techniques 2010, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
36. Kuhfeld W., Tobias F., Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 1994, 31:545-557.
37. Harris Interactive Harris Poll OnlineSM Panel. Available at: 2011 [accessed 13.07.11]. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/MethodsTools/DataCollection/HarrisPollOnlinePanel.aspx.
38. Mohamed A.F., Hauber A.B., Neary M.P. Patient benefit-risk preferences for targeted agents in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 2011, 29:977-988.
39. Johnson F.R., Hauber A.B. Are chemotherapy patients' HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res 2006, 15:285-298.
40. Osoba D., Hsu M-A., Copley-Merriman C., Coombs J., Johnson R., Hauber B. Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life domains during treatment. Qual Life Res 2006, 15:273-283.
41. Orme B.K. Getting started with conjoint analysis 2005, Research Publishers, Madison, WI.
42. Bech M., Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2005, 14:1079-1083.
43. Econometric Software. NLOGIT Version 4.0. Available at: 2009 [accessed 13.08.11]. http://www.limdep.com/products/nlogit/.
44. Hauber A.B., Mohamed A.F., Johnson F.R., Meddis D., Wagner S., O'Dowd L. Quantifying asthma patient preferences for onset of effect of combination inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonist maintenance medications. Allergy Asthma Proc 2009, 30:139-147.
45. Hauber A.B., Mohamed A.F., Johnson F.R., Falvey H. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet Med 2009, 26:416-424.
46. Lancsar E., Louviere J., Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med 2007, 64:1738-1753.
47. Aristides M., Chen J., Schulz M., Williamson E., Clarke S., Grant K. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2002, 20(11):775-784.
48. Hauber A.B., Itzler R., Johnson F.R., Mohamed A.F., González J.M., Cook J.R., et al. Healthy-days time equivalents for outcomes of acute rotavirus infections. Vaccine 2011, 29:8086-8093.
49. Johnson F.R., Hauber A.B., Özdemir S. Using conjoint analysis to estimate healthy-year equivalents for acute conditions: an application to vasomotor symptoms. Value Health 2009, 12(1):146-152.
50. Mehrez A., Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989, 9:142-149.
51. Hauber A.B. Healthy-years equivalent: wounded but not yet dead. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2009, 9(June):265-269.
52. Sweeting K.R., Whitty J.A., Scuffham P.A., Yelland M.J. Patient preferences for treatment of Achilles tendon pain: results from a discrete-choice experiment. Patient 2011, 4:45-54.
53. Johnson F.R., Hauber A.B., Özdemir S., Siegel C.A., Hass S., Sands B.E. Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit-risk preferences in Crohn's disease management. J Manag Care Pharm 2010, 16(8):616-628.