Preferences for surveillance strategies for women treated for high-grade precancerous cervical lesions

Objectives. Data are lacking on how women view alternative approaches to surveillance for cervical cancer after treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We measured and compared patient preferences (utilities) for scenarios with varying surveillance strategies and outcomes to inform guidelines and cost-effectiveness analyses of post-treatment surveillance options. Methods. English- or Spanish-speaking women who had received an abnormal Pap test result within the past 2 years were recruited from general gynecology and colposcopy clinics and newspaper and online advertisements in 2007 and 2008. Participation consisted of one face-to-face interview, during which utilities for 11 different surveillance scenarios and their associated outcomes were elicited using the time tradeoff metric. A sociodemographic questionnaire also was administered. Results. 65 women agreed to participate and successfully completed the preference elicitation exercises. Mean utilities ranged from 0.989 (undergoing only a Pap test, receiving normal results) to 0.666 (invasive cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy or radiation and chemotherapy). Undergoing both Pap and HPV tests and receiving normal/negative results had a lower mean utility (0.953) then undergoing only a Pap test and receiving normal results (0.989). Having both tests and receiving normal Pap but positive HPV results was assigned an even lower mean utility (0.909). 15.9% of the respondents gave higher utility scores to the Pap plus HPV testing scenario (with normal/negative results) than to the "Pap test alone" scenario (with normal results), while 17.5% gave the Pap test alone scenario a higher utility score. Conclusions. Preferences for outcomes ending with normal results but involving alternative surveillance processes differ substantially. The observed differences in utilities have important implications for clinical guidelines and cost-effectiveness analyses. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.