» Articles » PMID: 20553960

Preferences for Surveillance Strategies for Women Treated for High-grade Precancerous Cervical Lesions

Overview
Journal Gynecol Oncol
Date 2010 Jun 18
PMID 20553960
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Estimation of utility weights for human papilloma virus-related health states according to disease severity.

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.


Cervical Cancer Screening.

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.

References
1.
Howard K, Salkeld G, McCaffery K, Irwig L . HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?. Health Econ. 2007; 17(5):593-605. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1278. View

2.
Kuppermann M, Nease Jr R, Gates E, Learman L, Blumberg B, Gildengorin V . How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes?. Prenat Diagn. 2004; 24(6):424-9. DOI: 10.1002/pd.892. View

3.
Birch S, Melnikow J, Kuppermann M . Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility. Health Econ. 2003; 12(10):879-84. DOI: 10.1002/hec.783. View

4.
Wright Jr T, Massad L, Dunton C, Spitzer M, Wilkinson E, Solomon D . 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2007; 11(4):223-39. DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e318159408b. View

5.
Kaplan R . The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD. 2006; 2(1):91-7. DOI: 10.1081/copd-200052090. View