Patients' and urologists' preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment

Patients' Preferences for the Treatment of Metastatic Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

Patient treatment preferences are increasingly being used to inform health care decision making. This discrete choice experiment assessed how men perceive the risks and benefits of hypothetical treatment options for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

METHODS

Treatment attributes for inclusion were identified through a review of the literature and product labels. Expert interviews confirmed clinical appropriateness and patient relevance of the attributes, which included effectiveness (delay in months before chemotherapy), steroid use, possible drug interactions (additional hospital visits for monitoring), fogginess (effects on cognition and memory), fatigue (extreme tiredness), food restrictions, and bone pain. Following a pilot, the final discrete choice experiment included 18 choice sets presenting treatments for mCRPC and was completed by men with mCRPC in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Data were analyzed using a conditional logit model, with odds ratios (ORs) used to indicate preference for attributes, and tradeoff measures (TOM) were estimated using the ratio of coefficients.

FINDINGS

Within each attribute category and with all other factors being equal, participants (N = 285) indicated a strong preference for treatments that fully control bone pain (OR = 12.069 [95% CI, 10.555-13.800]) and for treatments that delay chemotherapy (OR, 1.727 [95% CI, 1.548-1.927]). They also preferred treatments that were associated with the lowest risk of fogginess (OR, 2.115 [95% CI, 1.849-2.420]), a lower risk of fatigue (OR, 1.365 [95% CI 1.219-1.528]), and fewer additional hospital visits (OR, 1.245 [95% CI 1.111-1.397]) than the respective reference categories. Participants preferred to use steroids under advice from a physician (OR, 1.275 [95% CI 1.132-1.437]). Food restrictions related to taking medication were not a significant concern for participants. TOM results indicated that large tradeoffs in effectiveness, fogginess, and fatigue are required for patients to prefer a treatment with uncontrolled bone pain that is very difficult to live with.

IMPLICATIONS

Men with mCRPC consider a wide range of factors when making decisions regarding their treatment. They showed a strong preference for treatment associated with better control of bone pain. They also placed value on treatments that could delay the need for chemotherapy, and they preferred to avoid side effects such as cognition and memory loss, and extreme tiredness. TOMs highlighted the importance of symptom control, even compared with potential side effects. An understanding of the degree to which patients value the attributes associated with various treatment options will assist clinicians and health care professionals when making decisions regarding the management of men with mCRPC.

Understanding Preferences for Treatment After Hypothetical First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: Surveying an Online Panel Utilizing a Novel Shared Decision-Making Tool

Background:

Although surgical management of a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) can reduce the risk of recurrent dislocation, other treatment characteristics, costs, and outcomes are important to patients considering treatment options. While patient preferences, such as those elicited by conjoint analysis, have been shown to be important in medical decision-making, the magnitudes or effects of patient preferences in treating an FTASD are unknown.

Purpose:

To test a novel shared decision-making tool after sustained FTASD. Specifically measured were the following: (1) importance of aspects of operative versus nonoperative treatment, (2) respondents’ agreement with results generated by the tool, (3) willingness to share these results with physicians, and (4) association of results with choice of treatment after FTASD.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A tool was designed and tested using members of Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online panel. The tool included an adaptive conjoint analysis exercise, a method to understand individuals’ perceived importance of the following attributes of treatment: (1) chance of recurrent dislocation, (2) cost, (3) short-term limits on shoulder motion, (4) limits on participation in high-risk activities, and (5) duration of physical therapy. Respondents then chose between operative and nonoperative treatment for hypothetical shoulder dislocation.

Results:

Overall, 374 of 501 (75%) respondents met the inclusion criteria, of which most were young, active males; one-third reported prior dislocation. From the conjoint analysis, the importance of recurrent dislocation and cost of treatment were the most important attributes. A substantial majority agreed with the tool’s ability to generate representative preferences and indicated that they would share these preferences with their physician. Importance of recurrence proved significantly predictive of respondents’ treatment choices, independent of sex or age; however, activity level was important to previous dislocators. A total of 125 (55%) males and 33 (23%) females chose surgery after FTASD, as did 37% of previous dislocators compared with 45% of nondislocators.

Conclusion:

When given thorough information about the risks and benefits, respondents had strong preferences for operative treatment after an FTASD. Respondents agreed with the survey results and wanted to share the information with providers. Recurrence was the most important attribute and played a role in decisions about treatment.

Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence

OBJECTIVE

This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation.

RESULTS

The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.

Factors that influence variation in clinical decision-making about thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke: results of a discrete choice experiment

Background

Intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute ischaemic stroke is underused (only 80% of eligible patients receive it) and there is variation in its use across the UK. Previously, variation might have been explained by structural differences; however, continuing variation may reflect differences in clinical decision-making regarding the eligibility of patients for treatment. This variation in decision-making could lead to the underuse, or result in inappropriate use, of thrombolysis.

Objectives

To identify the factors which contribute to variation in, and influence, clinicians’ decision-making about treating ischaemic stroke patients with intravenous thrombolysis.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) using hypothetical patient vignettes framed around areas of clinical uncertainty was conducted to better understand the influence of patient-related and clinician-related factors on clinical decision-making. An online DCE was developed following an iterative five-stage design process. UK-based clinicians involved in final decision-making about thrombolysis were invited to take part via national professional bodies of relevant medical specialties. Mixed-logit regression analyses were conducted.

Results

A total of 138 clinicians responded and opted to offer thrombolysis in 31.4% of cases. Seven patient factors were individually predictive of the increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (compared with reference levels in brackets): stroke onset time of 2 hours 30 minutes (50 minutes); pre-stroke dependency modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) of 3 (mRS4); systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 185 mmHg (140 mmHg); stroke severity scores of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 5 without aphasia, NIHSS 14 and NIHSS 23 (NIHSS 2 without aphasia); age 85 years (65 years); and Afro-Caribbean (white). Factors predictive of not offering thrombolysis were age 95 years; stroke onset time of 4 hours 15 minutes; severe dementia (no memory problems); and SBP of 200 mmHg. Three clinician-related factors were predictive of an increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (perceived robustness of the evidence for thrombolysis; thrombolysing more patients in the past 12 months; and high discomfort with uncertainty) and one factor was predictive of a decreased likelihood of offering treatment (clinicians’ being comfortable treating patients outside the licensing criteria).

Limitations

We anticipated a sample size of 150–200. Nonetheless, the final sample of 138 is good considering that the total population of eligible UK clinicians is relatively small. Furthermore, data from the Royal College of Physicians suggest that our sample is representative of clinicians involved in decision-making about thrombolysis.

Conclusions

There was considerable heterogeneity among respondents in thrombolysis decision-making, indicating that clinicians differ in their thresholds for treatment across a number of patient-related factors. Respondents were significantly more likely to treat 85-year-old patients than patients aged 68 years and this probably reflects acceptance of data from Third International Stroke Trial that report benefit for patients aged > 80 years. That respondents were more likely to offer thrombolysis to patients with severe stroke than to patients with mild stroke may indicate uncertainty/concern about the risk/benefit balance in treatment of minor stroke. Findings will be disseminated via peer-review publication and presentation at national/international conferences, and will be linked to training/continuing professional development (CPD) programmes.

Future work

The nature of DCE design means that only a subset of potentially influential factors could be explored. Factors not explored in this study warrant future research. Training/CPD should address the impact of non-medical influences on decision-making using evidence-based strategies.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Prostate Cancer Patients' Preferences for Intermittent vs. Continuous Androgen Deprivation-A Pilot Institutional Study

INTRODUCTION

With locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer patients, patient preference between intermittent (IAD) and continuous (CAD) androgen deprivation therapy has not been investigated. The goal of the study was to determine patients' preference for IAD vs. CAD therapy. The secondary aim was to elucidate demographic or treatment variables that may affect a patient's preference for one type of hormonal treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a tradeoff model that demonstrates the difference in outcome between IAD and CAD, a survey questionnaire was developed and administered to prostate cancer patients at the Odette Cancer Centre at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Only patients who had (1) locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) been previously treated for prostate cancer with relapsing prostate-specific antigen, or (3) slow metastatic disease were asked to participate. Data related to patients' demographic information and their decisional preference factors were collected.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 36 of 53 (68%) patients completed the survey. Most patients favoured IAD (n = 32) over CAD (n = 4). Patients currently on radical treatment (adjuvant hormone therapy and radiation therapy) preferred CAD compared with patients who were not on radical treatment (P = .044). Patients with high (>20 ng/L) pretreatment prostate-specific antigen showed preference for CAD; however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). Patients from both groups viewed quality of life as the strongest influence on their treatment preference, but had diverging opinions on side effects and general well being. The results of this pilot study could serve as a guide for future studies; a larger study combined with qualitative methodology may better address patients' needs and minimize any regret over their hormonal treatment.

Patient and disease factors affecting the choice and adherence to active surveillance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Treatment decisions for low-risk prostate cancer are arguably some of the most challenging in oncology. Active surveillance has emerged as an important option for many men with tumors estimated to have a low metastatic potential. Multiple complex patient and physician factors affect the recommendation, selection, and adherence to active surveillance. While baseline clinical criteria are used to identify candidates for this approach, it is important to identify and understand other forces that may influence the management of prostate cancer with active surveillance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient perceptions and acceptance of active surveillance have improved over time. Treatment decisions for prostate cancer are strongly associated with physician recommendations, and a high-quality relationship between the patient and his healthcare system is critical to successful active surveillance. Patient understanding of prostate cancer and consistency of information received from separate physicians can affect a decision to pursue active surveillance. Psychological symptoms, most notably regarding anxiety and distress, can affect adherence to active surveillance over time. In general, anxiety for men on active surveillance is low, and lifestyle interventions and self-management strategies may be helpful for increasing quality of life and limiting abandonment of active surveillance in the absence of disease progression.

SUMMARY

Multiple factors may affect the decision for and adherence to active surveillance for prostate cancer. It is important for both physicians and patients to be aware of these issues and work towards individualized approaches and interventions as needed to increase adoption of active surveillance in the future.

Clinicians' overestimation of febrile child risk assessment

We aimed to estimate clinicians' based risk thresholds at which febrile children would be managed as serious bacterial infections (SBI) to determine influencing characteristics and to compare thresholds with prediction model (Feverkidstool) risk estimates. Twenty-one video vignettes of febrile children visiting the emergency department (ED) were assessed by 42 (40.4 %) international paediatricians/paediatric emergency clinicians. Questions were related to clinical risk scores of the child having SBI and SBI management decisions on visual analogue scales. Feverkidstool risk scores were based on clinical signs/symptoms and C-reactive protein. Amongst vignettes assigned to SBI management, the median risk was 60 % (interquartile range (IQR) 30.0-80.5) and 16.0 % (IQR 5.0-32.0) when vignettes were not managed as SBI. Ill appearance and aberrant circulatory signs were the most influencing factors, as age and duration of fever were the least influencing factors on SBI management decisions. Feverkidstool risk scores varied from 13 % (IQR 7.7-28.1) for SBI management to 7.3 % (IQR 5.7-16.3) for no SBI management.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians assigned high risk scores to children who they would have managed as SBI, mostly influenced by ill appearance and aberrant circulation. In contrast to SBI risk assessment of the Feverkidstool, clinicians' appeared to apply a more stepwise assessment of the risk of presence/absence of SBI at different steps in the diagnostic and therapeutic process. Uniform risk thresholds at which one should start SBI management in febrile children remains unclear; risk thresholds at which we refrained from SBI management were more consistent.

WHAT IS KNOWN

•Only a small proportion of febrile children presenting to the emergency department will have serious bacterial infections (SBI) and uniform risk thresholds to start or withhold SBI treatment are not known. •The low prevalence of SBI and consequently the low exposure of clinicians to these infections make them rely more on alarming signs or clinical decision rules. What is New: •Previously identified model predictors for SBI appeared to be significantly influencing factors in clinicians' febrile child management in emergency care. •Clinicians' wielded higher risk thresholds regarding SBI febrile child management than reflected by the clinical prediction model while smaller differences in risk thresholds between clinical and model prediction were observed when clinicians refrained from SBI management.

Predicting prostate cancer treatment choices: The role of numeracy, time discounting, and risk attitudes

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among males in the United States, and there is lack of consensus as to whether active surveillance or radical prostatectomy is the best course of treatment. In this study, we examined the role of numeracy, time discounting, and risk taking on decision-making about prostate cancer treatment-in 279 men over age 50 without a prior prostate cancer diagnosis. Results showed that active surveillance was the most chosen option and its preference was predicted by numeracy and time discounting. However, radical prostatectomy was significantly predicted by participants' propensity to take risks.

Living better or living longer? Perceptions of patients and health care professionals in oncology

BACKGROUND

Cancer can influence the views of patients on treatment goals and make them different from those of health care professionals (HCPs). It is crucial to understand patient expectations regarding cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer and HCPs to evaluate their perceptions about treatment priorities and to analyse variables that might influence their opinions. To identify treatment choices, we interviewed all participants using a structured questionnaire with fictitious case vignettes.

RESULTS

We enrolled a total of 230 participants, including 144 patients and 86 HCPs (35 nurses, 21 physicians, 30 others). Treatment priority between survival time (28.5% for patients vs. 8.1% for HCP) and quality of life (45.8% vs. 87.2%) differed significantly, with the remaining participants stating they were uncertain or unwilling to respond, or providing invalid responses (P < 0.01). In logistic regression, prioritising survival time was more frequent in patients, adjusting for age and gender (odds ratio (OR) = 3.95; P < 0.01). The view that the physician alone should be responsible for treatment choices was more frequent among patients than HCPs (18.8 vs. 5.8%; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In Brazil, our results suggest that survival time is more important for patients with cancer than for HCPs, whereas quality of life is more important for HCPs than for patients with cancer, who place great emphasis on physicians as decision-makers. Given that Brazilian patients often rely on physicians for decisions, the potential impact of different priorities between survival time and quality of life when patients and HCPs are compared is unknown.

Cognitive factors influencing treatment decision-making in patients with localised prostate cancer: development of a standardised questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer have to make a well-informed treatment choice between (robot-assisted) radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and, in selected cases, brachytherapy and active surveillance. We developed and validated a questionnaire to determine the cognitive reasons motivating this choice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Prostate Cancer Decision-Making Questionnaire (PC-DMQ) was designed in-house and validated through the Delphi method. Finally, we tested the questionnaire in a cohort of 24 men, recently diagnosed with localised PC, before undergoing RARP (n = 16), EBRT (n = 6), brachytherapy (n = 1) or active surveillance (n = 1).

RESULTS

The experts reached consensus after three rounds. In the patient cohort, 75% of men undergoing RARP chose this treatment because 'it provides the best chance of cure'. Reasons to choose EBRT were not as explicit: 33.3% chose this treatment because 'it provides the best chance of cure' and 33.3% because 'the maintenance of potency is important to them'.

CONCLUSIONS

The PC-DMQ is a comprehensive and standardised tool that allows further research into cognitive factors that influence treatment decision-making in patients with localised PC.

Factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options: A systematic review

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members' desires on patient decision-making.

Men's preferences and trade-offs for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial. In deciding about screening, men must weigh the benefits and harms: little is known about benefit: harm trade-offs men are willing to accept. The objective of this study was to assess men's preferences for PSA screening, and the trade-offs between benefits and harms men are willing to accept when deciding about screening.

METHODS

Preferences of 662 men aged 40-69 were assessed using a discrete choice experiment. PSA screening was described by six attributes: prostate cancer deaths, prostate cancer diagnoses, unnecessary biopsies from false-positive PSA tests, impotence, urinary incontinence/bowel problems and cost. A mixed logit model was used to examine the influence of attributes on men's preferences for PSA testing; benefit: harm trade-offs were also calculated.

RESULTS

Men's preferences were significantly influenced by test characteristics, particularly potential mortality benefit, unnecessary biopsies and likelihood of urinary incontinence or bowel problems; preferences were also influenced by age, prior PSA testing experience and perceived risk of prostate cancer. Men were willing to accept between 65 and 233 of 10 000 extra men with unnecessary biopsies, and between 31 and 72 of 10 000 extra men with incontinence/bowel problems to avoid one prostate cancer death.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in valuations of attributes and trade-offs acceptable to men of different ages suggest a one size fits all approach to PSA testing, regardless of age, may not reflect men's preferences. Our results can be used by policymakers to ensure screening programmes are in line with men's preferences and by clinicians and patients to facilitate informed discussions of the most relevant benefits and downsides of PSA screening for an individual man.

Patient preferences for treatments to delay bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Most patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) develop bone metastases (BM) and present with bone complications like fracture. Bone-targeted agents that prevent metastasis-induced bone complications can cause adverse events. Understanding how patients view treatment options may optimize care. This study aimed to quantify how PCa patients value a hypothetical treatment that delays BM but can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The study also assessed the value patients place on avoiding metastasis-induced bone complications versus increased survival.

METHODS

PCa patients from the United Kingdom (n = 201) and Sweden (n = 200) on androgen-deprivation therapy or hormone therapy for ≥ 3 years completed a 10-question discrete-choice-experiment survey examining whether patients would accept a BM-delaying treatment. Two time-tradeoff questions assessed patients' willingness to tradeoff between survival and bone complications. Percentages of patients choosing treatment were summarized by levels of treatment efficacy and ONJ risk. Odds ratios from a logit model were used to evaluate how patient and medication characteristics affected treatment choice. Proportions of patients choosing each tradeoff scenario were calculated.

RESULTS

A majority of patients accepted treatment at the lowest benefit level (5-month BM delay) and highest risk level (9% ONJ risk). PCa symptoms and prior treatment affected patient preferences. Nearly 80% of patients would tradeoff at least 3 months of survival to avoid bone complications.

CONCLUSIONS

PCa patients in the U.K and Sweden may value a medication that delays BM, despite the risk of ONJ. Furthermore, patients were willing to tradeoff up to 5 months of survival for prevention of bone complications.