TY - JOUR
T1 - An Exploratory Analysis of the “Was It Worth It?” Questionnaire as a Novel Metric to Capture Patient Perceptions of Cancer Treatment
AU - Thanarajasingam, Gita
AU - Basch, Ethan
AU - Mead-Harvey, Carolyn
AU - Bennett, Antonia V.
AU - Mazza, Gina L.
AU - Schwab, Gisela
AU - Roydhouse, Jessica
AU - Rogak, Lauren J.
AU - Dueck, Amylou C.
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bennett reported receiving personal fees from Exelixis Inc. during the conduct of this study. Dr Dueck reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Basch reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Carevive Systems, Navigating Cancer, and Sivan Healthcare outside of the submitted work. Dr Roydhouse reported receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the submitted work. Dr Schwab is employed by and reported stock ownership in Exelixis Inc. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding Information:
Funding/Support: This work was funded by grants from the US National Institutes of Health Moonshot Tolerability Consortium grant (U01CA233046) and Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science, KL2 Mentored Career Development Award by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2 TR002379).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc.
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - Objectives: Asking “Was it worth it?” (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment's benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients’ perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. Methods: A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response. Results: A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to “Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?” (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to “If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?”; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to “Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?” Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (−2.5 vs −0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks.
AB - Objectives: Asking “Was it worth it?” (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment's benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients’ perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. Methods: A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response. Results: A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to “Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?” (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to “If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?”; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to “Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?” Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (−2.5 vs −0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks.
KW - adverse events
KW - patient perspective
KW - patient-reported outcomes
KW - tolerability
KW - toxicity
KW - value
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123307568&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85123307568&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1368
DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1368
M3 - Article
C2 - 35779938
AN - SCOPUS:85123307568
SN - 1098-3015
VL - 25
SP - 1081
EP - 1086
JO - Value in Health
JF - Value in Health
IS - 7
ER -