Patient and physician preferences for anticancer drugs for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a discrete-choice experiment

References

• American Cancer SocietyWhat are the key statistics about colorectal cancer2016 Available from: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonan-drectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statisticsAccessed February 7, 2016
   Google Scholar
• HechtJRMitchellEChidiacTA randomized phase IIIB trial of chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and panitumumab compared with chemotherapy and bevacizumab alone for metastatic colorectal cancerJ Clin Oncol200927567268019114685
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TolJPuntCJMonoclonal antibodies in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a reviewClin Ther201032343745320399983
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MühlbacherACBethgeSPatients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancerEur J Health Econ201516665767025135768
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HavrileskyLJAlvarez SecordAEhrismanJAPatient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancerCancer2014120233651365925091693
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WongMKMohamedAFHauberABPatients rank toxicity against progression-free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinomaJ Med Econ20121561139114822808923
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BlinmanPDuricVNowackAKAdjuvant chemotherapy for early colon cancer: what survival benefits make it worthwhile?Eur J Cancer201046101800180720137908
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HofmannSVetterJWatcherCHenne-BrunsDPorzsoltFKommanMVisual AIDS for multimodal treatment options to support decision making of patients with colorectal cancerBMC Med Inform Decis Mak20121211823092310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BornerMMSchoffskiPde WitRPatient preference and pharmacokinetics of oral modulated UFT versus intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin: a randomized crossover trial in advanced colorectal cancerEur J Cancer200238334935811818199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AristidesMChenJSchulzMWilliamsonEClarkeSGrantKConjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willing to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancerPharmacoeconomics2002201177578412201796
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BenjaminLCottéFEPhilippeCMercierFBachelotTVidal-TrécanGPhysicians’ preferences for prescribing oral and intravenous anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experimentEur J Cancer201248691292022033327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HauberABFairchildAOJohnsonFRQuantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literatureAppl Health Econ Health Policy201311431932923637054
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ClarkMDBetermannDPetrouSMoroDdeBekker-GrobEWDiscrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literaturePharmacoeconomics201432988390225005924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-GrobEWRyanMGerardKDiscrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literatureHealth Econ201221214517222223558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MarshallDBridgesJFHauberBConjoint analysis applications in health – how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008Patient20103424925622273432
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BridgesJKinterEKidaneLHeinzenRRMcCormickCThings are looking up since we started listening to patients: recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970–2007Patient20081427328222272995
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LouviereJJHensherDASwaitJDStated Choice Methods: Analysis and ApplicationsCambridgeCambridge University Press2000
   Google Scholar
• McFaddenDConditional logit analysis of quantitative choice behaviorZarembaPFrontiers in EconometricsNew York, NYAcademic Press1974105142
   Google Scholar
• HensherDARoseJMGreeneWHApplied Choice Analysis: A PrimerNew York, NYCambridge University Press2005
   Google Scholar
• BridgesJFHauberABMarshallDConjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task forceValue Health201114440341321669364
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JohnsonFRLancsarEMarshallDConstructing experimental designs for discrete choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task forceValue Health201316131323337210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KuhfeldWMarketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical TechniquesCary, NCSAS Institute Inc2010
   Google Scholar
• KuhfeldWTobiasFGarrattMEfficient experimental design with marketing research applicationsJ Mark Res199431545557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HauberABGonzalezJMGroothuis-OudshoornCGMStatistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task forceValue Health201619430031527325321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van HoutvenGJohnsonFRKilambiVHauberABEliciting benefit-risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysisMed Decis Making201131346948021310854
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HamakerMEvan RixtelBThunnissenPOberndorffAHSmakmanNTen Bokkel HuininkDMultidisciplinary decision-making on chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: an age-based comparisonJ Geriatr Oncol20156322523225631929
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DammKVogelAPrenzlerAPreferences of colorectal cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature reviewEur J Cancer Care (Engl)201423676277224840999
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PotoskyALHarlanLCKaplanRSJohnsonKALynchCFAge, sex, and racial differences in the use of standard adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancerJ Clin Oncol20022051192120211870160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WuXCChenVWBrookeSSubsite-specific incidence rate and stage of disease in colorectal cancer by race, gender, and age group in the United States, 1992–1997Cancer200192102547255411745188
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DealKSegmenting patients and physicians using preferences from discrete choice experimentsPatient20147152124327338
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• CurrieAAskariANachiappanSSevdalisNFaizOKennedyRA systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancerColorectal Dis20141711725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JohnsonFRHauberBOzdemirSSiegelCAHassSSandsBEAre gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit-risk preferences in Crohn’s disease managementJ Manag Care Pharm201016861662820866166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-GrobEWDonkersBJonkerMFStolkEASample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guidePatient20158537338425726010
   PubMedGoogle Scholar