Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Autografting

Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to elicit relative preferences for common treatment options of relapsed follicular lymphoma, and their associated attributes, amongst lymphoma patients in Alberta, and lymphoma-treating physicians in Canada, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Treatment administration, toxicity, survival free of relapse and cost were the attributes evaluated for four treatment options: standard chemotherapy (CT), radioimmunotherapy (RIT), high-dose CT and auto-SCT, and allo-SCT. For the 81 patients and 48 physicians who participated in this study, survival free of relapse was a positive influence on choice (P<0.001), whereas negative influences on choice included toxicity of allo-SCT (P<0.001 for patients, P=0.005 for physicians) and cost (P=0.001 for physicians only). The estimated uptake of the treatment options for patients was as follows: auto-SCT (69%), RIT (14%), CT (11%) and allo-SCT (7%). The distribution for physicians was similar (56, 20, 19 and 4%, respectively). In conclusion, patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma are able to consider the different attributes of various treatment options and are willing to trade off the need for hospitalization, associated toxicity and cost associated with autologous transplantation in order to benefit from an increased PFS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD . New approach to classifying non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: clinical features of the major histologic subtypes. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma classification project. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2780–2795.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bastion Y, Sebban C, Berger F, Felman P, Salles G, Dumontel C et al. Incidence, predictive factors, and outcome of lymphoma transformation in follicular lymphoma patients. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1587–1594.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Horning SJ . Natural history of and therapy for the indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Semin Oncol 1993; 20: 75–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Horning SJ, Rosenberg SA . The natural history of initially untreated low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 1471–1475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van Oers MH, Klasa R, Marcus RE, Wolf M, Kimby E, Gascoyne R et al. Rituximab maintenance improves clinical outcome of relapsed/resistant follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma in patients both with and without rituximab during induction: results of a prospective randomized phase 3 intergroup trial. Blood 2006; 108: 3295–3301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Crawley CR, Foran JM, Gupta RK, Rohatnier AZS, Summers K, Matthews J et al. A phase II study to evaluate the combination of fludarabine, mitoxantrone and dexamethasone (FMD) in patients with follicular lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 861–865.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Forstpointner R, Dreyling M, Repp R, Hermann S, Hanel A, Metzner B et al. The addition of rituximab to a combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone (FCM) significantly increases the response rate and prolongs survival as compared with FCM alone in patients with relapsed and refractory follicular and mantle cell lymphomas: results of a prospective randomized study of the German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 2004; 104: 3064–3071.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Keating MJ, McLaughlin P, Cabanillas F . Low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma–development of a new effective combination regimen (fludarabine, mitoxantrone and dexamethasone; FND). Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 1997; 6: 21–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Emmanouilides C, Witzig TE, Gordon LI, Vo K, Wiseman GA, Flinn IW et al. Treatment with yttrium 90 ibritumomab tiuxetan at early relapse is safe and effective in patients with previously treated B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2006; 47: 629–636.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon LI, Molina A, Witzig T, Emmanouilides C, Raubtischek A, Darif M et al. Durable responses after ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy for CD20+ B-cell lymphoma: long-term follow-up of a phase 1/2 study. Blood 2004; 103: 4429–4431.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wiseman GA, Witzig TE . Yttrium-90 (90Y) ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) induces long-term durable responses in patients with relapsed or refractory B-Cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2005; 20: 185–188.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Witzig TE, Gordon LI, Cabanillas F, Czuczman MS, Emmanouilides C, Joyce R et al. Randomized controlled trial of yttrium-90-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy versus rituximab immunotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory low-grade, follicular, or transformed B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 2453–2463.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rohatiner AZ, Nadler L, Davies AJ, Apostolidis J, Neuberg D, Matthews J et al. Myeloablative therapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for follicular lymphoma at the time of second or subsequent remission: long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2554–2559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schouten HC, Qian W, Kvaloy S, Porcellini A, Hogberg H, Johnsen HE et al. High-dose therapy improves progression-free survival and survival in relapsed follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: results from the randomized European CUP trial. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3918–3927.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. van Besien K, Loberiza Jr FR, Bajorunaite R, Armitage JO, Bashey A, Burns L et al. Comparison of autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for follicular lymphoma. Blood 2003; 102: 3521–3529.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ryan M . Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ 2004; 328: 360–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ryan M, Gerard K . Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2: 55–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5: 1–186.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 661–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH . Applied Choice Analysis: a Primer. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Lancsar E, Louviere J . Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ 2006; 15: 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Caldon LJ, Walters SJ, Ratcliffe J, Reed MW . What influences clinicians’ operative preferences for women with breast cancer? An application of the discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43: 1662–1669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Salkeld G, Solomon M, Butow P, Short L . Discrete-choice experiment to measure patient preferences for the surgical management of colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 742–747.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P, de Winter P, Payne H, Emberton M . Patients’ preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. BMJ 2004; 328: 382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cairns J, van der Pol M, Lloyd AJ . Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future. Health Econ 2002; 11: 655–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sabloff M, Atkins HL, Bence-Bruckler I, Bredeson C, Fergusson D, Genest P et al. A 15-year analysis of early and late autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant in relapsed, aggressive, transformed, and nontransformed follicular lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2007; 13: 956–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Montoto S, Canals C, Rohatiner AZ, Taghipour G, Sureda A, Schmitz N et al. Long-term follow-up of high-dose treatment with autologous haematopoietic progenitor cell support in 693 patients with follicular lymphoma: an EBMT registry study. Leukemia 2007; 21: 2324–2331.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tarella C, Ladetto M, Benedetti F, Vitolo U, Pulsoni A, Patti C et al. A recent update of three consecutive prospective trials with high-dose therapy and autograft, without or with rituximab, as primary treatment for advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL) shows a sizeable group of patients surviving in continuous complete remission up to 16 years after the end of treatment: should we still consider FL an incurable disease? Blood 2009; 114: 363 (abstract 882).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The project was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D A Stewart.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shafey, M., Lupichuk, S., Do, T. et al. Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment. Bone Marrow Transplant 46, 962–969 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2010.225

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2010.225

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links