Patient Preferences in Treatment Choices for Early-Stage Lung Cancer.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

BACKGROUND: Decision-making for lung cancer treatment can be complex because it involves both provider recommendations based on the patient's clinical condition and patient preferences. This study describes the relative importance of several considerations in lung cancer treatment from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A conjoint preference experiment began by asking respondents to imagine that they had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. Respondents then chose among procedures that differed regarding treatment modalities, the potential for treatment-related complications, the likelihood of recurrence, provider case volume, and distance needed to travel for treatment. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes. RESULTS: A total of 225 responses were analyzed. Respondents were most willing to accept minimally invasive operations for treatment of their hypothetical lung cancer, followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); they were least willing to accept thoracotomy. Treatment type and risk of recurrence were the most important attributes from the conjoint experiment (each with a relative weight of 0.23), followed by provider volume (relative weight of 0.21), risk of major complications (relative weight of 0.18), and distance needed to travel for treatment (relative weight of 0.15). Procedural and treatment preferences did not vary with demographics, self-reported health status, or familiarity with the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents preferred minimally invasive operations over SBRT or thoracotomy for treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Treatment modality and risk of cancer recurrence were the most important factors associated with treatment preferences. Provider experience outweighed the potential need to travel for lung cancer treatment.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Tong, BC; Wallace, S; Hartwig, MG; D'Amico, TA; Huber, JC

Published Date

  • December 2016

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 102 / 6

Start / End Page

  • 1837 - 1844

PubMed ID

  • 27623277

Pubmed Central ID

  • PMC5142526

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1552-6259

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.06.031


  • eng

Conference Location

  • Netherlands