Can pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research contribute to the empowerment of women affected by breast cancer?

References

• Claus EB, Schildkraut JM, Thompson WD, Risch NJ. The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer77(11), 2318–2324 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science266(5182), 66–71 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature378(6559), 789–792 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N. Engl. J. Med.336(20), 1401–1408 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am. J. Hum. Genet.62(3), 676–689 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haffty BG, Harrold E, Khan AJ et al. Outcome of conservatively managed early-onset breast cancer by BRCA1/2 status. Lancet359(9316), 1471–1477 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am. J. Hum. Genet.56(1), 265–271 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahedi K, Emanuelsson M, Wiklund F, Gronberg H. High risk of contralateral breast carcinoma in women with hereditary/familial non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast carcinoma. Cancer106(6), 1237–1242 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitzel JN, McCaffrey SM, Nedelcu R, MacDonald DJ, Blazer KR, Cullinane CA. Effect of genetic cancer risk assessment on surgical decisions at breast cancer diagnosis. Arch. Surg.138(12), 1323–1328; discussion 1329 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Armstrong K, Calzone K, Stopfer J, Fitzgerald G, Coyne J, Weber B. Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.9(11), 1251–1254 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerman C, Hughes C, Lemon SJ et al. What you don’t know can hurt you: adverse psychologic effects in members of BRCA1-linked and BRCA2-linked families who decline genetic testing. J. Clin. Oncol.16(5), 1650–1654 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke W, Daly M, Garber J et al. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA277(12), 997–1003 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, Streisand R, Lerman C. Psychological issues among children of hereditary breast cancer gene (BRCA1/2) testing participants. Psychooncology10(4), 336–346 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmes AW, Bowen DJ, Bengel J. Patient preferences of decision-making in the context of genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Genet. Med.4(3), 150–157 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishel MH, Germino BB, Gil KM et al. Benefits from an uncertainty management intervention for African–American and Caucasian older long-term breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology14(11), 962–978 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson JP. Struggling to gain meaning: living with the uncertainty of breast cancer. ANS Adv. Nurs. Sci.18(3), 59–76 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill SC, DeMarco T, Peshkin BN et al. Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. Am. J. Med. Genet. C. Semin. Med. Genet.142(4), 251–259 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Lerman C, Croyle RT, Tercyak KP, Hamann H. Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.70(3), 784–797 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan PF, Strombom I. Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.5(3), 257–262 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges J, Onukwugha E, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Patient preference methods – a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connections13(6), 4–7 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson PA. A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behaviour. Econometrica5, 353–354 (1938).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc. Sci. Med.48(4), 535–546 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Exp. Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.2(4), 2319–2326(8) (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy2(4), 213–224 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognizing diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ.10(4), 317–324 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelli M, Surh L, Humphreys L et al. Measuring women’s preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual. Life Res.10(7), 595–607 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerman C, Daly M, Walsh WP et al. Communication between patients with breast cancer and health care providers. Determinants and implications. Cancer72(9), 2612–2620 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn KL, Schneider EC, Malin JL, Adams JL, Epstein AM. Patient centered experiences in breast cancer: predicting long-term adherence to tamoxifen use. Med. Care45(5), 431–439 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Advocate perspective: advancing science-based approaches to breast cancer prevention. Cancer109(12 Suppl.), 2750–2751 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visco F. The National Breast Cancer Coalition: setting the standard for advocate collaboration in clinical trials. Cancer Treat. Res.132, 143–156 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mayer DK, Terrin NC, Kreps GL et al. Cancer survivors information seeking behaviors: a comparison of survivors who do and do not seek information about cancer. Patient Educ. Couns.65(3), 342–350 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helft PR. Breast cancer in the information age: a review of recent developments. Breast Dis.21, 41–46 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alderman AK, Hawley ST, Waljee J, Mujahid M, Morrow M, Katz SJ. Understanding the impact of breast reconstruction on the surgical decision-making process for breast cancer. Cancer112(3), 489–494 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogt F, Schwappach DL, Bridges JF. Accounting for tastes: a German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics24(5), 419–423 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Clancy C. Arming Health Care Consumers. Testimony Before the Joint Economic Committee, US Department of Health and Human Services (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Executive Order: Promoting Quality and Efficient Health Care in Federal Government Administered or Sponsored Health Care Programs. 13410 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D et al. Breast cancer patients’ expectations in respect of the physician-patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann. Oncol.18(3), 479–484 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruera E, Willey JS, Palmer JL, Rosales M. Treatment decisions for breast carcinoma: patient preferences and physician perceptions. Cancer94(7), 2076–2080 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruera E, Sweeney C, Calder K, Palmer L, Benisch-Tolley S. Patient preferences versus physician perceptions of treatment decisions in cancer care. J. Clin. Oncol.19(11), 2883–2885 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA277(18), 1485–1492 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audrain J, Rimer B, Cella D et al. Genetic counseling and testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility: what do women want? J. Clin. Oncol.16(1), 133–138 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman HB, Charlson ME, Temple LK. Is there a role for decision aids in cancer-related decisions? Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol.62(3), 240–250 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loukanova S, Molnar R, Bridges JF. Promoting patient empowerment in the healthcare system: highlighting the need for patient-centered drug policy. Exp. Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.7(3), 281–289 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J. Health Commun.11(6), 569–582 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.351(27), 2817–2826 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe K, Liede A, Trinkaus M, Hanna D, Narod S. Evaluation of the needs of spouses of female carriers of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Clin. Genet.62(6), 464–469 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar