Preferences for Surveillance Strategies for Women Treated for High-grade Precancerous Cervical Lesions
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objectives: Data are lacking on how women view alternative approaches to surveillance for cervical cancer after treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We measured and compared patient preferences (utilities) for scenarios with varying surveillance strategies and outcomes to inform guidelines and cost-effectiveness analyses of post-treatment surveillance options.
Methods: English- or Spanish-speaking women who had received an abnormal Pap test result within the past 2 years were recruited from general gynecology and colposcopy clinics and newspaper and online advertisements in 2007 and 2008. Participation consisted of one face-to-face interview, during which utilities for 11 different surveillance scenarios and their associated outcomes were elicited using the time tradeoff metric. A sociodemographic questionnaire also was administered.
Results: 65 women agreed to participate and successfully completed the preference elicitation exercises. Mean utilities ranged from 0.989 (undergoing only a Pap test, receiving normal results) to 0.666 (invasive cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy or radiation and chemotherapy). Undergoing both Pap and HPV tests and receiving normal/negative results had a lower mean utility (0.953) then undergoing only a Pap test and receiving normal results (0.989). Having both tests and receiving normal Pap but positive HPV results was assigned an even lower mean utility (0.909). 15.9% of the respondents gave higher utility scores to the Pap plus HPV testing scenario (with normal/negative results) than to the "Pap test alone" scenario (with normal results), while 17.5% gave the Pap test alone scenario a higher utility score.
Conclusions: Preferences for outcomes ending with normal results but involving alternative surveillance processes differ substantially. The observed differences in utilities have important implications for clinical guidelines and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Ock M, Park J, Son W, Lee H, Kim S, Jo M Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016; 14(1):163.
PMID: 27894347 PMC: 5126850. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-016-0566-8.
Sawaya G, Smith-McCune K Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127(3):459-467.
PMID: 26855089 PMC: 6585413. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001136.
A survey of population-based utility scores for cervical cancer prevention.
Simonella L, Howard K, Canfell K BMC Res Notes. 2014; 7:899.
PMID: 25495005 PMC: 4307910. DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-899.
Patient preferences for side effects associated with cervical cancer treatment.
Sun C, Brown A, Jhingran A, Frumovitz M, Ramondetta L, Bodurka D Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014; 24(6):1077-84.
PMID: 24905618 PMC: 4287264. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000149.