Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: To study the use of two different approaches, and feasibility of four commonly used utility assessment methods to assess preferences for treatment of T3-laryngeal cancer by surgery or radiation therapy (RT). METHODS: Utility assessment methods, namely, time trade-off (TTO), standard reference gamble (SRG), rating scale (RS), and direct comparison (DC), were used to assess utilities in two groups of former cancer patients (n = 10 for both), a group of clinicians (n = 9), and a group from the general population (n = 10). For the treatment modalities, ie, surgery and RT, two types of scenarios were developed and used: the state scenario, which describes a stable health state after treatment, and the process scenario, which describes a dynamic process. First, utilities were assessed based on state scenarios. Next, respondents were thoroughly informed and educated with respect to the relevant aspects of both treatment modalities. Subsequently, utilities were again assessed, but now based on the process scenarios. The outcome of each approach was calculated and expressed in a quality-adjusted life-expectancy (QALE) score for each treatment modality, and the treatment with the highest outcome was said to be the preferred treatment modality. RESULTS: In general, a higher QALE score for each treatment modality was found for clinicians and for the general population as compared with the former-cancer-patient groups. When the outcome of both approaches was compared on an individual level dependent on the utility assessment method, 32% to 43% of respondents showed an inconsistent treatment preference. CONCLUSION: The approach to assess utilities and the extent to which respondents are informed about treatment modalities have a major effect on individual treatment preferences.
Donk et al. (Fri,) studied this question.