, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 375–387 | Cite as

Measuring Treatment Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Docetaxel in Advanced Ovarian Cancer

  • George Dranitsaris
  • Julia Elia-Pacitti
  • Wayne Cottrell
Original Research Article


Background: Docetaxel is an equally active alternative to paclitaxel in advanced ovarian cancer but has a different adverse effect profile. Whilst paclitaxel is associated with less haematological toxicity, such as febrile neutropenia and anaemia, docetaxel causes less sensory and motor neuropathy.

Objective: To measure the economic value and preference scores for docetaxel as an alternative to paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Design and setting: A cost-benefit analysis using a consumer-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach was conducted. The study population consisted of a patient surrogate sample comprised of 80 oncology pharmacists and nurses from eight Canadian provinces. Background information on ovarian cancer was provided including its current management, and differences in adverse effects between docetaxel and paclitaxel. Respondents were then asked what their preferred product would be if they were diagnosed with ovarian cancer and how much they would be willing to pay per cycle for six cycles in the form of a co-payment (i.e. user’s fee) for the product of their choice. The maximum willingness to pay for docetaxel was then compared against the incremental cost (acquisition and administration) of the drug.

Study perspective: Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Main outcome measures and results: The WTP survey instrument was simple to administer and easily understood by participants. Respondents ranked motor neuropathy as being the most unpleasant adverse effect of treatment. Of the sample, 63.8% preferred to use docetaxel instead of paclitaxel (p = 0.075). The patient surrogate sample was willing to pay a mean of 64 Canadian dollars ($Can; 2003 values) [95% CI $Can33, $Can92] per cycle for the benefits offered by docetaxel as an alternative to paclitaxel. This estimate was marginally lower than the incremental cost of $Can87 per cycle of docetaxel.

Conclusion: A substantial portion of Canadian patients with ovarian cancer would likely prefer to be treated with docetaxel instead of paclitaxel for the management of their disease and would be willing to pay a portion of the incremental cost. Therefore, both options should be offered to patients, and selection of treatment can be based on reducing the risk of the toxicity that concerns the patient the most.


Ovarian Cancer Paclitaxel Docetaxel Febrile Neutropenia Incremental Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to express their gratitude to the local investigators who administered the questionnaire. This study was funded by Aventis Pharma Inc. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.


  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2000. New York (NY): American Cancer Society, 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian cancer statistics 2001. Toronto (ON): Health Canada, 2001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    3. du Bois A. Treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Eur I Cancer 2001; 37 Suppl. 9: SI-7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGuire WP, Hoskins WI, Brady MF, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl I Med 1996; 334: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neijt IP, Engelholm SA, Tuxen MK, et al. Exploratory phase III study of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer. I Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3084–92Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nabholtz JM, Senn HI, Bezwoda WR, et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus mitomycin plus vinblastine in patients with metastatic breast cancer progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing regimen. I Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1413–24Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shepherd FA, Dancey I, Ramlau R, et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. I Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2095–103Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Scottish Gynaecologic Cancer Trials Group. A phase III comparison of paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC) and docetaxelcarboplatin (DC) as first-line chemotherapy for Stage Ie-IV epithelial ovarian cancer [abstract 804]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 202aGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Brien B, Gafni A. When do the ‘dollars’ make sense?: toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 288–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ortega A, Dranitsaris G, Puodziunas A. What are cancer patients willing to pay for epoetin alia: a cost-benefit analysis. Cancer 1998; 83: 2588–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dranitsaris G, Leung P, Ciotti R, et al. A multinational study to measure the value that patients with cancer place on improved emesis control following cisplatin chemotherapy. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (9): 955–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zillich AI, Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, et al. Assessment of the relationship between measures of disease severity, quality oflife, and willingness to pay in asthma. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (4): 257–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leung P, Tannock IF, Oza AM, et al. Cost utility analysis of chemotherapy using paclitaxel, docetaxel or vinorelbine for patients with anthracycline-resistant breast cancer. I Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3082–90Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gafni A. Using willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: what is the relevant question to ask in the context of public decision making about health care problems? Med Care 1991; 29: 1246–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nils-Olov S. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting point bias. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 242–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell RC, Carson RT. A contingent valuation estimate of national freshwater benefits: technical report to the US environmental protection agency. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1984Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Dranitsaris
    • 1
  • Julia Elia-Pacitti
    • 2
  • Wayne Cottrell
    • 3
  1. 1.Augmentium Pharma ConsultingTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Toronto Sunnybrook Regional Cancer CentreTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Ontario Cancer Institute/Princess Margaret HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations