Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In establishing decision models in the treatment and prevention of breast cancer, it is important to evaluate patients' preferences for such interventions. The objectives of the present study were: (i) to characterize women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing, using the rating scale and standard gamble techniques; and (ii) to identify factors associated with these quality of life indices. Data were collected from women with breast cancer (n = 60), high-risk relatives of women with breast cancer (n = 58), and women in the general population (n = 51). Regardless of group membership, participants favoured treatment and prevention options that involved minimal physical invasiveness. Women with breast cancer rated lumpectomy and radiation treatment more highly than high-risk relatives and women in the general population. Preferences did not differ according to participants' intentions to undergo BRCA testing. Age was the only demographic variable associated with health state preferences. These findings hold implications for the application of patient preferences to clinical decision making.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fallowfield LJ, Hall A, Maguire GP, Baum M. Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial. Br Med J 1990; 301: 575–580.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lindley C, Vasa S, Sawyer WT, Winer EP. Quality of life and preferences for treatment following systemic adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 1380–1387.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Curran D, van Dongen JP, Aaronson NK, et al. Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures: Results of EORTC Trial 10801. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Breast Cancer Co-Operative Group (BCCG). Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 307–314.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Futreal PA, Liu Q, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al. BRCA1 mutations in primary breast and ovarian carcinomas. Science 1994; 266: 120–122.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 1994; 266: 66–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tavtigian SV, Simard J, Rommens J, et al. The complete BRCA2 gene and mutations in chromosome 13q-linked kindreds. Nat Genet 1996; 12: 333–337.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature 1995; 378: 789–791.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Margolese RG. How do we interpret the results of the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial? CMAJ 1998; 158: 1613–1614.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lerman C, Schwartz MD, Lin TH, Hughes C, Narod S, Lynch H. The influence of psychological distress on use of genetic testing for cancer risk. J Consult Clin Psychol 1997; 65: 414–420.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 593–600.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–575.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 33–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Unic I, Stalmeier PFM, Verhoef LCG, Van Daal WAJ. Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 268–277.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferguson BM, Keown PA. An introduction to utility measurement in health care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995; 16: 240–247.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nease RF, Tsai R, Hynes LM, Littenberg B. Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 175–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schrag D, Kuntz KM, Garber JE, Weeks JC. Special report: Decision analysis — effects of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy on life expectancy among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1464–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, Antman KH, Neugut AI. Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1–positive or BRCA2–positive patients. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 979–985.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dominitz JA, Provenzale D. Patient preferences and quality of life associated with colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92: 2171–2178.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697–704.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Redmond K. Assessing patients needs and preferences in the management of advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer, 1998; 77: S2–S7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bass EB, Steinberg EP, Pitt HA, et al. Comparison of the rating scale and the standard gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of gallstone disease. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 307–314.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hayman JA, Fairclough DL, Harris JR, Weeks JC. Patient preferences concerning the trade-off between the risks and benefits of routine radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1252–1260.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mold JW, Looney SW, Viviani NJ, Quiggins PA. Predicting the health-related values and preferences of geriatric patients. J Fam Pract 1994; 39: 461–467.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. O'Connor AM, Boyd NF, Warde P, Stolbach L, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: Influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 811–818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shin AY, Porter PJ, Wallace C, Naglie G. Quality of life of stroke in younger individuals. Stroke 1997; 28: 2395–2399.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zug KA, Littenberg B, Baughman RD, et al. Assessing the preferences of patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 561–568.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 58–67.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. O'Connor AM. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 119–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. BMJ 1990; 300: 1458–1460.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pauker SG, McNeil BJ. Impact of patient preference on the selection of therapy. J Chron Dis 1981; 34: 77–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cappelli M, Surh L, Humphreys L, et al. Psychological and social determinants of women's decisions to undergo genetic counseling and testing for breast cancer. Clin Genet 1999; 55: 419–430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sox HC, Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Medical Decision Making. Boston: Butterworths, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R, Horsman J. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, McMaster University, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multiattribute preference functions — Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 503–520.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 33–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Nease RF Jr, Kneeland T, O'Connor GT, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA 1995; 273: 1185–1190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rutten-van Molken MPMH, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EKA, van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Med Care 1995; 33: 922–937.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 1976; 10: 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Division, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    M. Cappelli, L. Surh, L. Humphreys, A. Hunter & J. Allanson

  2. General Division, Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    S. Verma & D. Logan

Authors
  1. M. Cappelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Surh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Humphreys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Logan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Allanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cappelli, M., Surh, L., Humphreys, L. et al. Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual Life Res 10, 595–607 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013123915272

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013123915272

Search

Navigation