Search

Background: Studies have shown that utilities for a particular treatment, elicited by means of a hypothetical treatment scenario, may remain stable within the same patients when examined before, during, and after experiencing that treatment (within-group stability). However, other studies have found that utilities for a particular health state may differ between patient groups who are and who are not experiencing the particular health state (between-group differences)., Objective: The authors evaluated this apparent contradiction in the case of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. A related purpose was to examine whether a chemotherapy scenario adequately reflects the patients' own experiences with chemotherapy., Method: Forty-three patients with early-stage breast cancer evaluated their actually experienced health state and a chemotherapy scenario before, during, and after undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (chemotherapy group). A control group of 51 patients for whom chemotherapy was not part of the treatment plan was interviewed at similar points in time. Utilities were elicited by means of a visual analog scale (VAS), a chained time trade-off (TTO), and a chained standard gamble (SG)., Results: The utilities for the chemotherapy scenario remained relatively stable over time in the 2 patient groups. Furthermore, the chemotherapy scenario was evaluated more positively by patients in the chemotherapy group than by control patients (e.g., utilities before chemotherapy: VAS 0.69 vs. 0.50, TTO 0.88 vs. 0.50, SG 0.92 vs. 0.58, all Ps < 0.01). Finally, patients in the chemotherapy group evaluated their actually experienced health states during chemotherapy higher than the chemotherapy scenario that was assessed at the same time (VAS 0.79 vs. 0.69, TTO 0.93 vs. 0.87, SG 0.97 vs. 0.96, all Ps < 0.05)., Conclusions: Both within-group stability and between-group differences were found. A possible explanation for within-group stability may be that the chemotherapy scenario did not fully correspond to the patients' actual experiences with chemotherapy ("noncorresponding description"). Therefore, preferences did not change even when the patients' own clinical health status had changed. The between-group differences may be explained by "anticipated adaptation." Both explanations may work together to explain why utilities remain stable within the same patients but differ between different patient groups.

When making decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer, costs and benefits of treatment should be carefully weighed. In this process, patients' preferences are of major importance. The objectives of the present study were: (1) to determine the minimum benefits that patients need to find chemotherapy acceptable, and (2) to explore potential preference determinants, namely: positive experience of the treatment, reconciliation with the treatment decision, and demographic variables. Preferences were elicited from patients scheduled for adjuvant chemotherapy (chemotherapy group: n = 38) before (T(1)), during (T(2)), and 1 month after chemotherapy (T(3)), and were compared to responses from patients not scheduled for chemotherapy (no-chemotherapy group: n = 38). The patients were asked, for a hypothetical situation, to indicate the minimum benefit (in terms of improved 5-year disease-free survival) to find adjuvant chemotherapy acceptable. In the chemotherapy group, the median benefit was 1% at all 3 measurement points. In the no-chemotherapy group the attitude towards chemotherapy became more negative over time, although not statistically significantly so (T(1): 12%, T(2): 15%, T(3): 15%; P = 0.10). At all measurement points, the patients in the chemotherapy group indicated that they would accept chemotherapy for significantly (P< 0.01) less benefit than the patients in the no-chemotherapy group. Of the demographic variables, age was related to preferences, but only at T(2)and only in the no-chemotherapy group. The more positive attitude towards chemotherapy and the stability of preferences in the chemotherapy group indicated that reconciliation with the treatment decision was a more important determinant of patients' preferences than positive experience of the treatment., (Copyright 2001 Cancer Research Campaign.)

Objective: Many studies suggest that impaired health states are valued more positively when experienced than when hypothetical. This study investigated to what extent this discrepancy occurs and examined four possible explanations: non-corresponding description of the hypothetical health state, new understanding due to experience with the health state, valuation shift due to a new status quo, and instability of preference., Patients and Methods: Fifty-five breast cancer patients evaluated their actually experienced health state, a radiotherapy scenario, and a chemotherapy control scenario before, during, and after postoperative radiotherapy. Utilities were elicited by means of a visual analog scale (VAS), a chained time tradeoff (TTO), and a chained standard gamble (SG)., Results: The discrepancy was found for all methods and was statistically significant for the TTO (predicted utilities: 0.89, actual utilities: 0.92, p < or = 0.05). During radiotherapy, significant differences (p < or = 0.01) were found between the utilities for the radiotherapy scenario and the actual health state by means of the VAS and the SG, suggesting non-corresponding description as an explanation. The utilities of the radiotherapy scenario and the chemotherapy control scenario remained stable over time, and thus new understanding, valuation shift, and instability could be ruled out as explanations., Conclusion: Utilities obtained through hypothetical scenarios may not be valid predictors of the value judgments of actually experienced health states. The discrepancy in this study seems to have been due to differences between the situations in question (non-corresponding descriptions).