Skip Navigation


Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on August 26, 2005
Annals of Oncology 2005 16(11):1786-1794; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi370
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/11/1786    most recent
mdi370v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duric, V. M.
Right arrow Articles by Simes, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Duric, V. M.
Right arrow Articles by Simes, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology

Patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: what makes AC and CMF worthwhile now?

V. M. Duric1, M. R. Stockler1,2,*, S. Heritier1, F. Boyle3, J. Beith2, A. Sullivan2, N. Wilcken4, A. S. Coates5,6 and R. J. Simes1

1 NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney; 2 Sydney Cancer Centre; 3 Mater Hospital; 4 Nepean Hospital; 5 The Cancer Council Australia; 6 School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

* Correspondence to: Dr M. R. Stockler, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Locked Bag 77, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. Tel: +61-02-9562-5000; Fax: +61-02-9565-1863; E-mail: stockler{at}med.usyd.edu.au

Background: Studies of women who had adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer 10–20 years ago showed that many judged small benefits sufficient to make it worthwhile. Indications, regimens and supportive care have changed. We sought the preferences of contemporary women who received similar chemotherapy.

Patients and methods: Ninety-seven consecutive consenting women who completed adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer 3–34 months previously were interviewed. Preferences were elicited with a structured, scripted interview using the trade-off method. Women were presented with four hypothetical scenarios based on known life expectancies (5 and 15 years) and survival rates (65% and 85% at 5 years) without adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results: Improvements of an additional year in life expectancy or 3% in survival rates were judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile by 68–84% of women. Half the women judged 1 day or 0.1% sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile. Recollections of better well-being during adjuvant chemotherapy, having dependants and having a friend or relative who died from cancer were independently associated with judging smaller benefits sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Preferences were highly variable, but the benefits judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile were even smaller than those found in previous studies. Preferences were influenced by factors other than direct benefits and harms of chemotherapy.

Key words: adjuvant chemotherapy, early breast cancer, patient preferences


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JCOHome page
T. Watanabe, M. Sano, S. Takashima, T. Kitaya, Y. Tokuda, M. Yoshimoto, N. Kohno, K. Nakagami, H. Iwata, K. Shimozuma, et al.
Oral Uracil and Tegafur Compared With Classic Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, Fluorouracil As Postoperative Chemotherapy in Patients With Node-Negative, High-Risk Breast Cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 Trial
J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2009; 27(9): 1368 - 1374.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
E. R. Bossema, C. A. M. Marijnen, M. C. M. Baas-Thijssen, C. J. H. van de Velde, and A. M. Stiggelbout
Evaluation of the Treatment Tradeoff Method in Rectal Cancer Patients: Is Surgery Preference Related to Outcome Utilities?
Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 888 - 898.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
S. C. O'Neill, N. T. Brewer, S. E. Lillie, E. F. Morrill, E. C. Dees, L. A. Carey, and B. K. Rimer
Women's Interest in Gene Expression Analysis for Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk
J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2007; 25(29): 4628 - 4634.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
R. S. Punglia, M. Morrow, E. P. Winer, and J. R. Harris
Local Therapy and Survival in Breast Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med., June 7, 2007; 356(23): 2399 - 2405.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.