Patients' preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

Patients' Preferences for Adjuvant Osimertinib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Complete Surgical Resection: What Makes It Worth It to Patients?

BACKGROUND

The ADAURA trial confirmed adjuvant Osimertinib's efficacy in EGFR-mutated Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet the limited mature overall survival (OS) data at approval poses a challenge. This study explores patient preferences in the absence of complete OS information, hypothesizing that disease-free survival (DFS) benefit alone may influence adjuvant Osimertinib pursuit.

METHODS

At Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Jan-Dec 2021), patients assessed for adjuvant therapy received a survey probing OS and DFS preferences. Scenarios were (a) minimum OS justifying Osimertinib, (b) minimum DFS improvement justifying 3-years of adjuvant Osimertinib, (c) minimum 5-year DFS percent change, and (d) minimum OS justifying copay changes. Results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 524 NSCLC patients, 51 participated. Scenario 1 saw 56% requiring a 12-month OS benefit for Osimertinib justification. In scenario 2, 72% deemed a 12-month DFS benefit sufficient. Scenario 3 revealed 31% opting out despite a 10% OS increase. Scenario 4 showed varied willingness to pay, with 33% unwilling to any shoulder copayment even with a 10-year OS benefit.

CONCLUSION

This study explores patient preferences without complete OS data, revealing diverse thresholds. Factors include employment, education, and willingness to pay. Findings underscore shared decision-making importance. Limitations include sample size, potential biases, and regional focus; larger cohorts are needed for validation.

Farmers' Willingness to Participate in a Carbon Sequestration Program - A Discrete Choice Experiment

Farmers can counteract global warming by drawing carbon dioxide from the air into agricultural soils by building up humus. Humus programs were developed to motivate farmers for even more humus formation (= carbon sequestration) through an additional financial incentive. These programs are still at an early stage of development, which is why the number of participating farmers and research work is still low. This study is the first to analyze the willingness of German farmers to participate in hypothetical humus programs. The results of a discrete choice experiment show that a (higher) threshold for the payout of the premium, regional (rather than field-specific) reference values, and the risk of repayment clearly discourage farmers from participating. Program providers must more than double the premium (set at around 240 € per hectare and 0.1% humus increase) to maintain farmers' willingness to participate despite a payout threshold. Regional reference values and an additional premium/repayment system would lead to an increase in the premium of around 20 € per hectare in order to keep the willingness to participate at the same level. The motivation to build up humus, the desire to maximize subsidies, and a higher livestock density have a positive influence on farmers' decision to participate. Farm size and risk attitude have an impact on farmers' preferences for program design. The study is relevant for policymakers and non-governmental organizations concerned with carbon management, as our findings highlight pathways for efficient, targeted designs of humus programs and carbon sequestration policies.

The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments

PURPOSE

The calculation of aggregated composite measures is a widely used strategy to reduce the amount of data on hospital report cards. Therefore, this study aims to elicit and compare preferences of both patients as well as referring physicians regarding publicly available hospital quality information METHODS: Based on systematic literature reviews as well as qualitative analysis, two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were applied to elicit patients' and referring physicians' preferences. The DCEs were conducted using a fractional factorial design. Statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models RESULTS: Apart from five identical attributes, one specific attribute was identified for each study group, respectively. Overall, 322 patients (mean age 68.99) and 187 referring physicians (mean age 53.60) were included. Our models displayed significant coefficients for all attributes (p < 0.001 each). Among patients, "Postoperative complication rate" (20.6%; level range of 1.164) was rated highest, followed by "Mobility at hospital discharge" (19.9%; level range of 1.127), and ''The number of cases treated" (18.5%; level range of 1.045). In contrast, referring physicians valued most the ''One-year revision surgery rate'' (30.4%; level range of 1.989), followed by "The number of cases treated" (21.0%; level range of 1.372), and "Postoperative complication rate" (17.2%; level range of 1.123) CONCLUSION: We determined considerable differences between both study groups when calculating the relative value of publicly available hospital quality information. This may have an impact when calculating aggregated composite measures based on consumer-based weighting.

Patient Priorities Concerning Treatment Decisions for Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors Identified by Discrete Choice Experiments

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have multiple treatment options. Ideally, treatment decisions are shared between physician and patient; however, previous studies suggest that oncologists and patients place different value on treatment attributes such as adverse event (AE) rates. High-quality information on NET patient treatment preferences may facilitate patient-centered decision making by helping clinicians understand patient priorities.

METHODS

This study used 2 discrete choice experiments (DCE) to elicit preferences of NET patients regarding advanced midgut and pancreatic NET (pNET) treatments. The DCEs used the "potentially all pairwise rankings of all possible alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method. The primary objective was to determine relative utility rankings for treatment attributes, including progression-free survival (PFS), treatment modality, and AE rates. Ranking of attribute profiles matching specific treatments was also determined. Levels for treatment attributes were obtained from randomized clinical trial data of NET treatments.

RESULTS

One hundred and 10 participants completed the midgut NET DCE, and 132 completed the pNET DCE. Longer PFS was the highest ranked treatment attribute in 64.5% of participants in the midgut NET DCE, and in 59% in the pNET DCE. Approximately, 40% of participants in both scenarios prioritized lower AE rates or less invasive treatment modalities over PFS. Ranking of treatment profiles in the midgut NET scenario identified 60.9% of participants favoring peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), and 30.0% somatostatin analogue dose escalation.

CONCLUSION

NET patients have heterogeneous priorities when choosing between treatment options based on the results of 2 independent DCEs. These results highlight the importance of shared decision making for NET patients.

Canakinumab Versus Placebo in Combination With First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CANOPY-1 Trial

PURPOSE

The addition of checkpoint inhibitors to first-line treatment has prolonged survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but prognosis remains poor, with new treatment options needed. Canakinumab, a human, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)-1β antibody, has potential to enhance the activity of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (CT) by inhibiting protumor inflammation.

METHODS

CANOPY-1 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind study comparing canakinumab (200 mg subcutaneously once every 3 weeks) versus placebo, both combined with pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) and platinum-based doublet CT, as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, safety, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 643 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n = 320) or placebo (n = 323). With a median study follow-up of 6.5 months, the median PFS was 6.8 months with canakinumab versus 6.8 months with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.09; P = .102). With a median study follow-up of 21.2 months, the median OS was 20.8 months with canakinumab versus 20.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10; P = .123). No unexpected safety signals were observed for canakinumab combination. Infection rates were comparable between treatment and control arms. A higher frequency of neutropenia and ALT increase (grade ≤2) were reported in the treatment arm. Higher baseline C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Patients treated with canakinumab had clinically meaningful delays in deterioration of lung cancer symptoms, including chest pain and coughing per LC13 and dyspnea per LC13 and C30.

CONCLUSION

The addition of canakinumab to first-line pembrolizumab and CT did not prolong PFS or OS in patients with NSCLC.

Treatment preferences among Japanese patients and physicians for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Evidence is limited on preferences of Japanese patients and physicians in treatment for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several oral or intravenous novel agents for EGFR exon 20 insertions are under development. The aim of our study was to investigate which attributes of novel treatments influenced selection of oral or intravenous agents among treated patients and treating physicians in Japan.

METHODS

The study was designed by board-certified oncologists, patient representatives, and analytics specialists. Eligible participants completed an online survey with a discrete choice experiment presenting two treatment profiles described by attributes: mode of administration (oral or intravenous); frequency of administration; overall response rate (ORR); average progression-free survival (PFS); chance of experiencing severe side effects (SEs); mild-moderate gastrointestinal SEs; mild-moderate skin-related SEs; and patient out-of-pocket costs.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (all self-reported EGFR-mutant) and 74 physicians participated from December 2021 to August 2022. All attributes being equal, there was greater preference for oral administration. However, there was greater preference for intravenous over oral, when ORR and PFS improved by 10% and 1 month, and severe SEs reduced by 10%. Physicians exhibited greater preference for PFS compared to patients (p < 0.01). Ranked order of attribute importance was as follows: (1) PFS; (2) ORR; (3) severe SEs, expressed by patients and physicians alike.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed Japanese physician and patient preferences in treatment options for EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Compared to the strong preference for a more efficacious drug, the preference of oral versus intravenous revealed a smaller impact.

Symptoms and Experiences with Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study of Patients and Caregivers

INTRODUCTION

Understanding of the patient-perceived symptom burden of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is limited. The objective of this study was to explore patients' experiences with SCLC, identify which treatment-/disease-related symptoms have the greatest impact on their well-being, and gain caregiver perspectives.

METHODS

A noninterventional, cross-sectional, multimodal, mixed methods study was conducted from April-June 2021. Adult patients with SCLC and unpaid caregivers were eligible to participate. Patients' experiences, captured via 5-day video diaries and follow-up interviews, were scored 1-10 on how bothersome the patients perceived each symptom/symptomatic adverse event. Patients indicated if they believed a symptom was disease or treatment related. Caregivers participated in an online community board.

RESULTS

The study included nine patients (five with extensive-stage [ES] disease, four with limited-stage [LS] disease) and nine caregivers. Except for one patient/caregiver pairing, patients and caregivers were unmatched. The most common impactful symptoms in patients with ES-SCLC were shortness of breath, fatigue, coughing, chest pain, and nausea/vomiting; in LS-SCLC, these were fatigue and shortness of breath. Among patients with ES disease, SCLC had a high impact on physical (leisure/hobbies, work, sleep, ability to do household chores and errands/responsibilities outside home), social (family dynamics, extrafamilial social interaction), and emotional (mental health) aspects. Patients with LS-SCLC faced the long-term physical effects of treatment, financial implications, and emotional toll of an uncertain prognosis. SCLC had a high personal and psychologic burden among caregivers, whose duties consumed much of their time. Caregivers observed similar symptoms and impacts of SCLC as those reported by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides valuable insight into patient- and caregiver-perceived burden of SCLC and can inform the design of prospective studies. Clinicians should seek to understand patients' opinions and priorities before making treatment decisions.

Preferences of People Living with HIV for Long-Acting Antiretroviral Treatment in Germany: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elicit preferences for attributes of current and novel long-acting antiretroviral therapy for human immunodeficiency virus treatment.

METHODS

Primary survey data were collected (July-October 2022) on a sample of 333 people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Germany from a patient recruitment agency. Respondents were invited by e-mail to respond to a web-based questionnaire. After performing a systematic literature review, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews to identify and select the key attributes of drug therapy for patients' preferences for human immunodeficiency virus treatment. Based on this, a discrete choice experiment survey elicited preferences for long-acting antiretroviral therapy characteristics, including the type of medication, frequency of dosing, the location of treatment, the risk of both short-term and long-term side effects, as well as possible interactions with other medications or (party) drugs. A statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models. An additional latent class multinomial logit was performed to evaluate subgroup differences.

RESULTS

Overall, 226 respondents (86% male, mean age 46.1 years) were included in the analysis. The frequency of dosing (36.1%) and the risk of long-term side effects (28.2%) had the greatest influence on preferences. The latent class analysis identified two patient groups. While the first class (n = 135; 87% male, mean age 44.4 years) found the frequency of dosing (44.1%) to be most important, the second class (n = 91; 85% male, mean age 48.6 years) focused on the risk of long-term side effects (50.3%). The evaluation of structural variables showed that male respondents, those living in small cities or villages, and those with better health status results were significantly more likely to be assigned to the second class (p < 0.05 each).

CONCLUSIONS

All attributes included in our survey were important to participants when choosing an antiretroviral therapy. We found evidence that the frequency of dosing as well as the risk of long-term side effects have a particular impact on the acceptance of novel therapy regimens and should be considered in order to optimize adherence and satisfaction.

Treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in five European countries: a real-world evidence survey

BACKGROUND

The landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy is rapidly changing. This analysis aimed to understand patient characteristics, diagnosis and treatment patterns in patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) without EGFR and ALK mutations across five European countries.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi NSCLC Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of oncologists/pulmonologists and their consulting patients in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK. Physicians completed record forms (RFs) for the next six consecutive consulting patients with advanced NSCLC, who then voluntarily completed questionnaires. As an oversample, physicians provided a further ten RFs specifically for patients with EGFR-wild-type mNSCLC: five patients diagnosed before March 2020 (pre-SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19]) and five patients diagnosed from March 2020 (during COVID-19). Only EGFR-wild-type/ALK-wild-type patients were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age for 1073 patients with EGFR-wild-type/ALK-wild-type mNSCLC was 66.2 (8.9) years, 65.2% were male and 63.7% had adenocarcinoma. Level of PD-L1 expression at advanced diagnosis was < 1% for 23.1% of patients, 1-49% for 40.9% and ≥ 50% for 36.0%. Most common first-line (1L) advanced treatment was chemotherapy only (36.9%), immunotherapy monotherapy (30.5%) or immunotherapy + chemotherapy (27.6%). Of 158 patients who had progressed beyond 1L therapy, the mean (SD) time-to-treatment discontinuation was 5.1 (4.3) months; 75.9% of whom completed their 1L treatment as intended. A complete response was achieved by 6.7% and a partial response by 69.2% of patients. Of 38 patients who discontinued 1L treatment early, disease progression was reported for 73.7%. Quality of life (QoL) reported by patients was generally lower than normative reference values. Of 2373 oversample patients, physicians reported management changes for 34.7% due to COVID-19, ranging from 19.6% in Germany to 79.7% in the UK. Immunotherapy was prescribed as 1L NSCLC treatment during COVID-19 for 64.2% (n = 786) of patients and pre-COVID-19, for 47.8% (n = 549).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world treatment patterns suggest that chemotherapy use remains high despite guidelines recommending immunotherapy-based 1L treatment for mNSCLC. QoL reported by patients was generally lower than population reference values. Not implying causality, 1L immunotherapy use was higher during COVID-19 than pre-COVID-19, and the UK saw the biggest impact to patient management due to COVID-19.

Balancing benefits and risks in lung cancer therapies: patient preferences for lung cancer treatment alternatives

Background

In the treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) the combination of Immuno- Oncotherapy (IO) and chemotherapy (CT) has been found to be superior to IO or CT alone for patients' survival. Patients and clinicians are confronted with a preference sensitive choice between a more aggressive treatment with a greater negative effect on quality of life versus alternatives that are less effective but have fewer side effects.

Objectives

The aims of this study were to: (a) quantify patients' preferences for relevant attributes related to Immuno-Oncotherapy treatment alternatives, and (b) evaluate the maximum acceptable risk (MAR)/Minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) that patients would accept for treatment alternatives.

Methods

An online preference survey using discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was completed by NSCLC patients from two hospitals in Italy and Belgium. The survey asked patients' preferences for five patient- relevant treatment attributes. The DCE was developed using a Bayesian D-efficient design. DCE analyses were performed using mixed logit models. Information regarding patient demographics, health literacy, locus of control, and quality of life was also collected.

Results

307 patients (158 Italian, 149 Belgian), stage I to IV, completed the survey. Patients preferred treatments with a higher 5-year survival chance as the most important attribute over all the other attributes. Preference heterogeneity for the attribute weights depended on health literacy, patients' age and locus of control. Patients were willing to accept a substantially increased risks of developing side effects in exchange for the slightest increase (1%) in the chance of surviving at least 5 years from the diagnosis of cancer. Similarly, patients were willing to accept a switch in the mode of administration or complete loss of hair to obtain an increase in survival.

Conclusion

In this study, the proportion of respondents who systematically preferred survival over all other treatment attributes was particularly high. Age, objective health literacy and locus of control accounted for heterogeneity in patients' preferences. Evidence on how NSCLC patients trade between survival and other NSCLC attributes can support regulators and other stakeholders on assessing clinical trial evidence and protocols, based on patients' conditions and socio-demographic parameters.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Identification of Relevant Attributes for Liver Cancer Therapies (IRALCT): a maximum-difference-scaling analysis

The Identification of Relevant Attributes for Liver Cancer Therapies (IRALCT) project is intended to provide new insights into the relevant utility attributes regarding therapy choices for malignant primary and secondary liver tumors from the perspective of those who are involved in the decision-making process. It addresses the potential value of taking patients' expectations and preferences into account during the decision-making and, when possible, adapting therapies according to these preferences. Specifically, it is intended to identify the relevant clinical attributes that influence the patients', medical laymen's, and medical professionals' decisions and compare the three groups' preferences. We conducted maximum difference (MaxDiff) scaling among 261 participants (75 physicians, 97 patients with hepatic malignancies, and 89 medical laymen) to rank the importance of 14 attributes previously identified through a literature review. We evaluated the MaxDiff data using count analysis and hierarchical Bayes estimation (HB). Physicians, patients, and medical laymen assessed the same 7 attributes as the most important: probability (certainty) of a complete removal of the tumor, probability of reoccurrence of the disease, pathological evidence of tumor removal, possible complications during the medical intervention, welfare after the medical intervention, duration and intensity of the pain, and degree of difficulty of the medical intervention. The cumulative relative importance of these 7 attributes was 88.3%. Our results show that the physicians', patients', and medical laymen's preferences were very similar and stable.Trial registration DRKS-ID of the study: DRKS00013304, Date of Registration in DRKS: 2017/11/16.

Patient preferences regarding treatment options for Waldenström's macroglobulinemia: A discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

Treatment options for Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia (WM) have expanded rapidly in the last decades. However, there is no consensus on a preferred treatment. Therefore, patient preferences become increasingly important in making individualized treatment plans. Still, WM patients' priorities and perspectives regarding their treatment options are unknown. We evaluated treatment preferences of WM patients using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

METHODS

A mixed-method approach was utilized for identification and selection of attributes/levels. The DCE questionnaire included five attributes: type of agent (targeted versus chemotherapy); frequency and route of administration; 5-year progression-free survival (PFS); adverse events; and risk of secondary malignancies. An orthogonal design and a mixed logit panel data model were used to construct choice tasks and assess patient preferences, respectively.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty WM patients participated in the project. In total, 214 (65%) complete questionnaires were included for data analysis. The 5-year PFS, followed by risk of secondary malignancies were the most important attributes for making treatment choices. Regarding side effects, patients chose to avoid neuropathy the most compared to nausea/vomiting and extreme fatigue. Patients preferred a fixed-duration treatment with IV/SC administration at the hospital over a continuous daily oral regimen at home.

CONCLUSION

These are the first systematic data obtained on WM patient preferences for treatment. The results may help discussions with individual patients about their treatment choices. Also, these data can help design clinical trials in WM and inform health-care decision-making regarding outcomes that are most relevant to patients.

Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care-Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy Process Survey

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and "thinking-aloud" interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.

Elicitation of quantitative, choice-based preferences for Person-Centered Care among People living with Dementia in comparison to physicians' judgements in Germany: study protocol for the mixed-methods PreDemCare-study

BACKGROUND

Person-Centered-Care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among People-living-with-Dementia (PlwD) data on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which would allow to quantify, weigh and rank patient-relevant elements of dementia-care, and identify most/least preferred choices, are limited. The Analytic-Hierarchy-Process (AHP) may be one approach to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences with PlwD, due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision-problem, e.g. health care decisions. Furthermore, data on congruence of patient preferences with physicians' judgements for PCC are missing. If patient preferences and physicians' judgements differ, provision of PCC becomes unlikely. An understanding of patient preferences compared to physician's judgements will support the implementation of truly PCC, i.e. state of the art dementia-care aligned with patient preferences.

METHODS

This mixed-methods-study will be based on the results from a previous systematic review and conducted in three phases: (I) literature-based key intervention-categories of PCC will be investigated during qualitative interviews with Dementia-Care-Managers (DCMs) and PlwD to identify actually patient-relevant (sub) criteria of PCC; (II) based on findings from phase I, an AHP-survey will be designed and pre-tested for face- and content-validity, and consistency during face-to-face "thinking-aloud"-interviews with PlwD and two expert panels (DCMs and physicians); (III) the developed survey will elicit patient preferences and physicians' judgements for PCC. To assess individual importance weights for (sub) criteria in both groups, the Principal-Eigenvector-Method will be applied. Weights will be aggregated per group by Aggregation-of-Individual-Priorities-mode. Descriptive and interferential statistical analyses will be conducted to assess congruence of importance-weights between groups. Subgroup-analyses shall investigate participant-heterogeneities, sensitivity of AHP-results shall be tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents.

DISCUSSION

Little research is published on quantitative, choice-based preferences in dementia care. We expect that (1) PlwD have preferences and can express these, (2) that the AHP is a suitable technique to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences among PlwD, and (3) to identify a divergence between patient preferences and physicians' judgements for PCC. With the help of the AHP-technique, which supports systematic decision-making including multiple criteria, it may be possible to involve PlwD in future care decisions (patient participation) and ensure implementation of truly Person-Centered-Dementia-Care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Approval of the study was granted by the Ethics Committee at the University Medicine Greifswald the 09Apr2021 (Reg.-Nr.: BB 018-21, BB 018-21a, BB 018-21b).

Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental Design of an Analytic Hierarchy Process

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD's conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.

Fear of nosocomial HIV infection may be a barrier to HIV testing among young college and university students in Suzhou, China

ObjectiveHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) test uptake among college and university students in China remains suboptimal. This study aimed to identify and weigh the relative importance of HIV testing preferences among university students in China. Participants and methods: Qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments (DCE) were used to identify and assess HIV testing preferences in hypothetical HIV testing scenarios. Study participants were sexually experienced university students in Suzhou city, China. Results: 198 participants completed 1980 DCE choice tasks. Risk of nosocomial HIV infection, accuracy, and distance were identified as the most important factors when deciding whether to test for HIV. Risk of nosocomial HIV infection was the most influential factor, accounting for 35.5% of the variation in participants' DCE stated choices. Conclusions: Fear of HIV nosocomial infection may be influencing HIV test preferences and possibly test uptake among university students in China. Interventions should consider addressing students' fear of HIV nosocomial infection as a potential barrier to HIV testing.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Understanding patients’ preferences for health facilities could help decision makers in designing patient-centered services. Therefore, this study aims to understand how patients’ willingness to trade for certain attributes affects the choice of public health facilities in the Western Cape province of Cape Town, South Africa. A discrete choice experiment was conducted in two community day centers (CDCs). Patients repetitively chose between two hypothetical health facilities that differed in six attributes: distance to facility, treatment by doctors vs. nurses, confidentiality during treatment, availability of medication, first visit (drop-in) waiting times, and appointment waiting times. The sample consisted of 463 participants. The findings showed that availability of medication (50.5%), appointment waiting times (19.5%), and first visit waiting times (10.2%) were the most important factors for patients when choosing a health facility. In addition, respondents preferred shorter appointment and first visit waiting times (<2 h). These results identified important characteristics in choosing public health facilities in Cape Town. These public health facilities could be improved by including patient voices to inform operational and policy decisions in a low-income setting.

Physician Preferences and Shared-Decision Making for the Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatment of Lung Cancer: A Discrete-Choice Experiment Study in China

BACKGROUND

With progress being made in the treatment of cancer, various clinical and treatment options are being pursued. In China, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is used widely in the treatment of cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate TCM treatment preferences and SDM mode of physicians in China.

METHODS

This study was conducted among physicians (n=185) from nine tertiary hospitals in China by discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) survey. The DCE was developed with the inclusion of the most relevant attributes at appropriate levels for the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The empirical data analyses of physicians were performed using mixed logit models. Additionally, subgroup analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 185 respondents completed the questionnaire. All attributes were statistically significant except out-of-pocket costs. Physicians showed the strongest preferences for increasing disease control rate, relieving nausea and vomiting, and reducing the risk of side effects. Most of the physicians (78.38%) self-reported a high willingness to use SDM during the decision-making process. The physicians with a higher SDM-Q-Doc score had more preference for improving all three attributes than those with a lower score. Little variation was found in preferences among the physicians with other sociodemographic characteristics.

CONCLUSION

In China, physicians considered disease control rate as the most essential attribute in the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The physicians in China mainly preferred SDM, and the preference was different according to SDM mode when involving the TCM therapy for patients with lung cancer. The study findings could inform future TCM therapy for lung cancer and promote SDM.

Patient and Caregiver Preferences for First-Line Treatments of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinomas (mNSCLC) treatment has presented more care options. Therefore, it is important to identify the benefit-risk trade-offs patients and caregivers are willing to make among potential treatment options. This study quantified the preferences of patients and caregivers for attributes of mNSCLC treatment.

METHODS

Patients with mNSCLC and caregivers completed an online survey assessing preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Respondents chose between hypothetical treatment profiles, with varying levels for 7 attributes associated with first-line treatment, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, select adverse events (AEs), and regimen (caregivers). Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate attribute-level preference weights.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 308) and caregivers (n = 166) most valued increasing OS from 11 to 30 months, followed by decreasing the risk of a serious AE (grade 3/4) that may lead to hospitalization from 70% to 18%. These attributes were over twice as important to both sets of respondents as the other attributes measured. Patients and caregivers would accept increases in the risks of a serious AE (grade 3/4) from 18% to 70% and all grades nausea from 10% to 69% if OS increased by 16.8 and 4.0 months, respectively. The least valued attributes were all grades of pneumonitis (patients) and all grades of skin rash (caregivers).

CONCLUSION

Patients and caregivers are willing to make trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity and may require up to 1.5 years of increased OS to accept a higher risk of AEs. These results can provide guidance to oncologists when engaging in shared-decision making discussions.

Preferred Lung Cancer Screening Modalities in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

This study aimed to identify preferred lung cancer screening modalities in a Chinese population and predict uptake rates of different modalities. A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was administered to 392 Chinese individuals aged 50-74 years who were at high risk for lung cancer. Each choice set had two lung screening options and an option to opt-out, and respondents were asked to choose the most preferred one. Both mixed logit analysis and stepwise logistic analysis were conducted to explore whether preferences were related to respondent characteristics and identify which kinds of respondents were more likely to opt out of any screening. On mixed logit analysis, attributes that were predictive of choice at 1% level of statistical significance included the screening interval, screening venue, and out-of-pocket costs. The preferred screening modality seemed to be screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) + blood test once a year in a general hospital at a cost of RMB 50; this could increase the uptake rate by 0.40 compared to the baseline setting. On stepwise logistic regression, those with no endowment insurance were more likely to opt out; those who were older and housewives/househusbands, and those with a health check habit and with commercial endowment insurance were less likely to opt out from a screening programme. There was considerable variance between real risk and self-perceived risk of lung cancer among respondents. Lung cancer screening uptake can be increased by offering various screening modalities, so as to help policymakers further design the screening modality.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

BACKGROUND

As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance.

RESULT

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed.

LIMITATIONS

No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

The Importance of Disease-Free Survival as a Clinical Trial Endpoint: A Qualitative Study Among Canadian Survivors of Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In lung cancer trials, overall survival is a well-validated and widely used endpoint; yet, in the context of adjuvant or curative intent treatments, disease-free survival (DFS) may be a better indicator of transformative patient outcomes. Although use of DFS is growing, patient perceptions of its relevance have not been established.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand the importance of DFS as a trial endpoint, from the perspective of survivors of lung cancer.

METHODS

Web-based qualitative interviews were conducted with Canadian survivors of stage Ib-IIIa lung cancer. Participants described their experiences of cancer diagnosis and treatment, including their treatment goals and priorities. Participants then provided their perspectives on DFS and overall survival, and how well each aligned with their treatment priorities. Thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in responses.

RESULTS

Among the 18 participants (mean age, 64 years), 83% were female, most (89%) had received surgery, and 56% received chemotherapy. Most participants viewed DFS as an intrinsically meaningful treatment outcome, for reasons such as alignment with treatment goals, and the perception that DFS would help maintain a high quality of life. One individual was interested in DFS only as a potential surrogate for overall survival. Participants desired access to new treatments that improve DFS and emphasized this within the context of promoting patient agency in treatment decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest DFS is a meaningful endpoint from the perspective of survivors of lung cancer; and may help inform decisions regarding regulatory approval and reimbursement of new treatments based on DFS data.

Patient Preferences: Results of a German Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis (Market Research Study Sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company) in Patients on Palliative Treatment for Advanced Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Integration of patient preferences into shared decision making improves disease-related outcomes, but such data from patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC) are limited. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the relative importance of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in relation to quality of life (QoL) and therapy-associated side effects from the perspective of patients with aBC.

METHODS

Postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative aBC receiving first- or second-line treatment were recruited throughout Germany. Patient-relevant attributes for aBC therapy assessment were collected using a stepwise multimodal approach. A conjoint matrix was developed, resulting in 2 attributes for therapy goals (OS and PFS), 4 for QoL, and 6 for side effects. An online quantitative survey was then performed using adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) methodology.

RESULTS

The quantitative survey included 104 patients: 67 (64.4%) receiving first-line treatment and 37 (35.6%) receiving second-line treatment. The QoL attribute "physical agility and mobility" received the highest utility score (19.4 of 100%), reflecting the greatest importance to patients, followed by treatment goals (OS [15.2%] and PFS [14.4%]). Therapy-related side effects were less important, with nausea/vomiting being the most important (9.3%), followed by infection (6.4%) and hair loss (5.0%). The McFadden pseudo R2 (0.805), the root likelihood (0.864), and the χ2 test (2,809.041; p < 0.0001) indicated a very good fit of the statistical model.

CONCLUSION

Using ACBC analysis, it appears that QoL, OS, and PFS are most important to postmenopausal patients with aBC in relation to cancer treatment. Side effects seem to be less important if OS or PFS are prolonged and the QoL is maintained. Thus, QoL, OS, and PFS should be considered equally when making treatment decisions in aBC.

Patients' Preferences Regarding Invasive Mediastinal Nodal Staging of Resectable Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Variability in practice and ongoing debate on optimal invasive mediastinal staging of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are widely described in the literature. Patients' preferences on this topic have, however, been underexposed so far.

METHODS

An internet-based questionnaire was distributed among MEDIASTrial participants (NTR6528, randomization of patients to mediastinoscopy or not in the case of negative endosonography). Literature, expert opinion and patient interviews resulted in five attributes: the risk of a futile lung resection (oncologically futile in case of unforeseen N2 disease), the length of the staging period, resection of the primary tumor, complications of staging procedures and the mediastinoscopy scar. The relative importance (RI) of each attribute was assessed by using adaptive conjoint analysis and hierarchical Bayes estimation. A treatment trade-off was used to examine the acceptable proportion of avoided futile lung resections to cover the burden of confirmatory mediastinoscopy.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients completed the questionnaire (57%). The length of the staging period was significantly the most important attribute (RI 26.24; 95% CI: 25.05-27.43), followed by the risk of a futile surgical lung resection (RI 23.44; 95% CI: 22.28-24.60) and resection of the primary tumor (RI 22.21; 95% CI: 21.09-23.33). Avoidance of 7% (IQR 1- >14%) futile lung resections would cover the burden of confirmatory mediastinoscopy, with a dichotomy among patients always (39%) or never (38%) willing to undergo confirmatory mediastinoscopy after N2 and N3-negative endosonography.

CONCLUSION

Although a strong dichotomy among patients always or never willing to undergo confirmatory mediastinoscopy was found, the length of the staging period was the most important attribute in invasive mediastinal staging according to patients with resectable NSCLC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Quantitative Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment from the Patients' Perspective: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Regulatory agencies as well as private organizations pursue programs that advocate patient centricity and emphasize the importance of dialog with patients. Various methods are applied to elicit the preferences of patients regarding the aspects of treatment they lend more importance to. Decisions on treatment choices are critical to patients with lung cancer because of their poor prognosis and the serious trade-off between safety and efficacy in traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of quantitative patient preference studies of patients with lung cancer. Our exhaustive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PLOS, and SpringerLink identified 15 relevant studies published from January 2000 to April 2020 that enabled us to assess the relative importance of treatment attributes according to lung cancer patients' perspective.

RESULTS

The literature review revealed that patients with lung cancer tend to place a higher weight on efficacy and quality of life (QoL) attributes than on other attributes. Overall survival was found to be the most important among the efficacy attributes. The consequences of adverse events seemed less important than the possible efficacy from therapies. The clinical utility of treatment, such as the route of administration, was generally not considered important. It remains inconclusive whether sociodemographic factors and/or medical history affect the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review clarified that patients generally prefer a better efficacy profile to a better safety profile, which underscores the importance of improved benefits in anti-lung cancer drug development.

Patient Preferences for Attributes of Chemotherapy for Lung Cancer: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in Japan

Our study objective was to determine lung cancer chemotherapy attributes that are important to patients in Japan. A discrete choice experiment survey in an anonymous web-based questionnaire format with a reward was completed by 200 lung cancer patients in Japan from November 25, 2019, to November 27, 2019. The relative importance of patient preferences for each attribute was estimated using a conditional logit model. A hierarchical Bayesian logit model was also used to estimate the impact of each demographic characteristic on the relative importance of each attribute. Of the 200 respondents, 191 with consistent responses were included in the analysis. In their preference, overall survival was the most important, followed by diarrhea, nausea, rash, bone marrow suppression (BMS), progression-free survival, fatigue, interstitial lung disease, frequency of administration, and duration of administration. The preferences were influenced by demographic characteristics (e.g., gender and age) and disease background (e.g., cancer type and stage). Interestingly, the experience of cancer drug therapies and adverse events had a substantial impact on the hypothetical drug preferences. For the Japanese lung cancer patients, improved survival was the most important attribute that influenced their preference for chemotherapy, followed by adverse events, including diarrhea, nausea, rash, and BMS. The preferences varied depending on the patient’s demographic and experience. As drug attributes can affect patient preferences, pharmaceutical companies should be aware of the patient preferences and develop drugs that respond to segmented market needs.

Effects of an Interprofessional Communication Approach on Support Needs, Quality of Life, and Mood of Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Trial

Background

To address the support needs of newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer with limited prognosis, the Milestone Communication Approach (MCA) was developed and implemented. The main elements of the MCA are situation‐specific conversations along the disease trajectory conducted by an interprofessional tandem of physician and nurse. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of MCA on addressing support needs, quality of life, and mood as compared with standard oncological care.

Patients and Methods

A randomized trial was conducted with baseline assessment and follow‐up assessments at 3, 6, and 9 months in outpatients with newly diagnosed lung cancer stage IV at a German thoracic oncology hospital. The primary outcome was the Health System and Information Needs subscale of the Short Form Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS‐SF34‐G) at 3‐month follow‐up. Secondary outcomes included the other subscales of the SCNS‐SF34‐G, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy lung module, the Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety, and the Distress Thermometer.

Results

At baseline, 174 patients were randomized, of whom 102 patients (MCA: n = 52; standard care: n = 50) provided data at 3‐month follow‐up. Patients of the MCA group reported lower information needs at 3‐month follow‐up (mean ± SD, 33.4 ± 27.5; standard care, 43.1 ± 29.9; p = .033). No effects were found for secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

MCA lowered patient‐reported information needs but did not have other effects. MCA contributed to tailored communication because an adequate level of information and orientation set the basis for patient‐centered care.

Implications for Practice

By addressing relevant issues at predefined times, the Milestone Communication Approach provides individual patient‐centered care facilitating the timely integration of palliative care for patients with a limited prognosis. The needs of patients with lung cancer must be assessed and addressed throughout the disease trajectory. Although specific topics may be relevant for all patients, such as information about the disease and associated health care, situations of individual patients and their families must be considered. Additionally, using the short form of the Supportive Care Needs Survey in clinical practice to identify patients’ problems might support individually targeted communication and preference‐sensitive care.

Addressing patient information needs in a timely fashion is of paramount importance for preference‐sensitive decisions and patient‐centered care. This article evaluates the Milestone Communication Approach to oncological care.

Differences in Lung Cancer Treatment Preferences Among Oncologists, Patients and Family Members: A Semi-Structured Qualitative Study in China

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment decision-making often needs to balance benefits, harms, and costs. This study sought to identify the differences in cancer treatment preference among oncologists, patients and their family members in China.

METHODS

A semi-structured face-to-face qualitative interview was conducted among oncologists, patients and their family members recruited in four tertiary hospitals in China. The interview guide was developed based on literature review and expert consultation. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences when making lung cancer treatment decisions. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analyzed. The preferences were compared among three groups of participants.

RESULTS

A total of 17 participants (5 oncologists, 6 dyads of patients and family members) were interviewed between June and July 2019. Five themes, namely, survival benefit, adverse effect/symptom, treatment process, treatment cost, and the impact on daily life were identified. The oncologists and family members gave highest priority on survival benefit, while the patients are concerned most about treatment cost and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals different preferences for cancer treatment among oncologists, patients and their family members in China. Education is needed to empower patients and family members and promote share decision-making in this country.

Line of therapy and patient preferences regarding lung cancer treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

A growing literature on patient preferences informs decisions in research, regulatory science, and value assessment, but few studies have explored how preferences vary across patients with differing treatment experience. We sought to quantify patient preferences for the benefits and risks of lung cancer treatment and test how preferences differed by line of therapy (LOT).

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) following rigorous patient and stakeholder engagement. The DCE spanned five attributes (each with three levels): progression-free survival (PFS), short-term side effects, long-term side effects, risk of developing late-onset side effects, and mode of administration (MOA) - each defined across 3 relevant levels. A D-efficient design was used to generate 3 survey blocks of 9 paired-profile choice tasks each and respondents were asked which profile they preferred and then if they preferred to have no treatment (opt-out). A mixed logit model, controlling for opt-out, was used to estimate preferences. Preferences and trade-offs between PFS and other attributes were compared across two groups: those receiving ≤1 LOT and those receiving ≥2 LOT.

RESULTS

Of the 466 participants, 42% received ≤1 LOT and 58% received ≥2 LOT. Stated preferences differed between the groups overall (p<.001) and specifically for 18 months of PFS (p<.001), moderate short-term side effects (p<.001), no long-term side effects (p=.03), and 30% chance of late-onset side effects (p=.02). Those receiving differing amounts of LOT were willing to trade different amounts of PFS to change from moderate to mild short-term side effects (p<.001), moderate to no (p<.001) and mild to no (p<.001) long-term side effects. There were also differing amounts of tradeoff acceptable between the groups for a 10% decrease in risk of late-onset side effects (p=.016), a decrease in MOA from infusion every 3 weeks to pills taken daily at any time (p=.005) and from pills taken daily without food to pills taken daily at any time (p<.001).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate differences in preferences based on experience with LOT, suggesting that patient treatment experience may have an impact on their preferences. As patient preference data become an important component of treatment decision making, preference differences should be considered when recommending therapies at different stages in the treatment journey. Understanding patient preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to informing shared decision-making and ensuring treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals.

Trends in mediastinal nodal staging and its impact on unforeseen N2 and survival in lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for invasive mediastinal nodal staging in resectable nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changed over the years. The aims of this study were to describe trends in invasive staging and unforeseen N2 (uN2) and to assess a potential effect on overall survival.

METHODS

A nationwide Dutch cohort study included all clinical stage IA-IIIB NSCLC patients primarily treated by surgical resection between 2005 and 2017 (n=22 555). We assessed trends in invasive nodal staging (mediastinoscopy 2005-2017; endosonography 2011-2017), uN2 and overall survival and compared outcomes in the entire group and in clinical nodal stage (cN)1-3 patients with or without invasive staging.

RESULTS

An overall increase in invasive nodal staging from 26% in 2005 to 40% in 2017 was found (p<0.01). Endosonography increased from 19% in 2011 to 32% in 2017 (p<0.01), while mediastinoscopy decreased from 24% in 2011 to 21% in 2017 (p=0.08). Despite these changes, uN2 was stable over the years at 8.7%. 5-year overall survival rate was 41% for pN1 compared to 37% in single node uN2 (p=0.18) and 26% with more than one node uN2 (p<0.01). 5-year overall survival rate of patients with cN1-3 with invasive staging was 44% versus 39% in patients without invasive staging (p=0.12).

CONCLUSION

A significant increase in invasive mediastinal nodal staging in patients with resectable NSCLC was found between 2011 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Increasing use of less invasive endosonography prior to (or as a substitute for) surgical staging did not lead to more cases of uN2. Performance of invasive staging indicated a possible overall survival benefit in patients with cN1-3 disease.

A Study of Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Western China: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

Background: Non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common histologic type of lung cancer, accounting for 70–85% of all lung cancers. It has brought a heavy burden of disease and financial cost to families, society, and the nation of China. Patients have differing preferences for treatment because of their varying physical conditions and socioeconomic backgrounds, which ultimately affects the choice of treatment as well as treatment outcomes. For better and sustained health outcomes, it is vital to understand patients' preferences. We can then provide medical services to match these preferences and needs rather than basing treatment on our clinical viewpoints alone.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to elicit patient preferences for treatment using a discrete-choice experiment and to explore the value/importance that patients place on the different attributes of treatment in order to provide a basis for clinical decision making and patient health management.

Methods: The study was conducted with NSCLC patients from three typical hospitals in southwestern China. After identifying patient-relevant treatment attributes via literature review and qualitative semi structured interviews, a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) including seven patient-relevant attributes was conducted using a fractional factorial SAS design. The empiric data analyses of patients were performed using mixed logit models.

Results: NSCLC patients (N = 202) completed a survey via a face-to-face interview. Among the seven attributes, the following were considered important: progression-free survival, disease control rate, cost, weakness/fatigue, and nausea/vomiting; mode of administration and rash were considered less important. A clear preference for an increase in progression-free survival and disease control rate was demonstrated. Compared with 5 months of progression-free survival, respondents were willing to pay more (19,860 RMB) for 11 months of progression-free survival (coef.: 0.687). Compared with a 60% rate of disease control, respondents were willing to pay more (19,940 RMB) for a 90% rate of disease control (coef.: 0.690).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the value of DCEs in determining patient preferences for the treatment of NSCLC. The results indicate that not only efficacy factors (such as progression-free survival and disease control rate) were considered but also other factors (such as side effects and treatment costs) and trade-offs between attributes were held to be important. These results are in accord with expectations and can provide evidence for more effective and efficient treatment results. Furthermore, the current results can increase benefits if the presented therapies can be designed, assessed, and chosen based on patient-oriented findings.

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Study Protocol Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients

Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey.

Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts.

Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.

Stated Preferences in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION

The different alternatives for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment can increase survival but cause important adverse events. Therefore, patients' preference can play a critical role in decision-making. Among stated preference methods, discrete choice experiment (DCE) is the most applied in health care to elicit preferences. This research aims to elicit patients' preference evaluating the trade-off between the risks (adverse events) and benefits (survival) of systemic treatments, from the perspective of Brazilian patients with locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent NSCLC.

METHODS

A DCE was performed following the steps of attributes selection; construction of tasks and respondents' preference elicitation. Patients chose between 2 hypothetical treatments described by the attributes tiredness, hair loss, skin rash, hospitalization, administration mode and survival. A paper-and-pencil survey method was used to elicit the answers from the participants. The statistical data analysis used a mixed logit model to predict the relative importance of the attributes.

RESULTS

Most of the 65 patients interviewed were men (53.8%), mean age of 65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-67) years and lung cancer stage IV (67.7%). Except for hospitalization and administration mode, the attributes coefficients were statistically significant (p < 0.005) for patients' preferences. Patients would require a minimum survival gain of 11.72 (CI: 10.28-4.22) months and 19.72 (CI: 17.31-7.09) months to accept a treatment that causes severe tiredness and severe skin rash, respectively. The market share of the treatments was calculated according to the DCE aggregate-level estimation, considering the impact of each treatment's side effects. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin had an estimated market share of 31%, followed by gefitinib (27%), erlotinib (24%) and docetaxel (18%).

CONCLUSION

In general, less than a year of survival gain would not suffice for the appearance of severe skin rash or tiredness.

Patient preferences and predicted relative uptake for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

Ras wild-type metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) may be treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. We aim to estimate patients' preferences for mCRC treatment and relative importance of cost, efficacy improvement, avoidance of side effects and therapy convenience, and relative uptake between profiles that resemble Bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) and Cetuximab (anti-EGFR), two commonly prescribed mCRC targeted therapies.

METHODS

Discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to English- or Chinese-speaking Stage 2 or 3 colon cancer patients at the National Cancer Centre Singapore. DCE attributes comprise progression-free survival (PFS), severity of acne-like skin rashes, severity of bleeding, out-of-pocket cost per month and frequency of drug administration. Mixed logit model was used to calculate preference weights for all attribute levels. Subgroup analyses were conducted by interacting attribute levels with selected respondent characteristics. Relative uptake rates for various medication scenarios were studied.

RESULTS

169 respondents aged 61.5 ± 10.5 years completed the survey. They placed the greatest weight on cost, followed by bleeding and skin rashes, then PFS and finally frequency of drug administration. This was similarly observed in the subgroup analyses. A scenario with shorter PFS but less severe side effects has a slightly higher relative uptake at 55%. One quarter of respondents reported that they would not take the treatment they preferred in the choice task.

CONCLUSION

Patients were willing to trade off some degree of efficacy to avoid certain severity of side effects. It is therefore crucial for patients and physicians to discuss patients' preferences and circumstances to understand which attributes are more important, as well as patients' views on the trade-offs between treatment benefits and risks.

Patient preferences for first-line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a US survey and discrete choice experiment

A cross-sectional online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was used to investigate first-line treatment preferences in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the United States; 141 patients (median age 35.0 years) participated. In the DCE, risk of progression at 2 years (progression free survival) had the highest relative importance to patients (31.3%) when considering first-line treatments, followed by 2-year overall survival (OS; 26.9%), on-treatment pulmonary toxicity (23.3%), and on-treatment peripheral neuropathy (18.5%). Marginal rate of substitution analyses demonstrated that a 0.44% and 0.09% increase in 2-year OS was required for patients to accept a 1% increase in the risk of disease progression at 2 years and peripheral neuropathy, respectively. A 2.6% increase in 2-year OS was needed to accept a 7% rather than a 2% risk of pulmonary toxicity. In summary, patients with cHL rated survival attributes as more important than drug-related toxicity when considering first-line treatments.

Immunotargeted therapy in melanoma: patient, provider preferences, and willingness to pay at an academic cancer center

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

New melanoma therapies have shifted the expectations of patients and providers. Evaluating the impact of treatment characteristics may enhance shared decision making. A survey, including a discrete choice experiment, was utilized to evaluate perceived trade-offs of different melanoma treatments and to estimate out-of-pocket (OOP) willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds (January 2016 to March 2016). Participants included patients with melanoma at Huntsman Cancer Institute and their cancer care providers. Stakeholder focus groups were conducted to identify treatment attributes. Descriptive and comparative statistics and multinomial logit model were used to evaluate responses. Response rates were 41.9% (N = 220) for patients and 37.7% (N = 20) for providers. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy attributes considered important by participants were overall survival, immunotherapy-related side effects, and skin toxicities. Patients and providers had significantly different views of quality-of-life expectations, anxiety toward melanoma, trust to make treatment decisions, sharing concerns about treatment, time to discuss treatment, understanding OOP costs, and willingness to undergo/recommend treatment (half of the patients would undergo treatment if it was effective for > 24 months). Among patients, the average monthly OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab was $ 2357 and for BRAF/MEK inhibitor was $1648. Among providers, these estimates were $ 2484 and $1350, respectively. Discordance existed between patients’ and providers’ perceptions about quality of life expectations, degree of anxiety, sharing of opinions, and progression-free survival. Our study suggests that patients and providers exhibit a higher OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy treatment compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, influenced predominately by overall survival expectations.

Stated preferences for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma treatments in Sweden and Germany

Background: We aimed to elicit treatment preferences in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (r/r MCL). Materials & methods: A discrete-choice experiment comprising six attributes ('overall survival', 'progression-free survival', 'fatigue', 'nausea', 'risk of serious infections' and 'treatment administration') was administered to r/r MCL patients, physicians and the general population (GP) in Sweden and Germany. Results: 18 patients, 68 physicians and 191 GP members participated. 'Overall survival' was the most important attribute, followed by 'risk of serious infection' and 'progression-free survival' among physicians and the GP. In contrast, 'treatment administration' was the second most important attribute to patients, followed by 'risk of serious infection.' Conclusion: Preferences for characteristics differentiating treatments of r/r MCL varies between patients, physicians and members of the GP.

Public Attitudes on Lung Cancer Screening and Radiation Risk: A Best-Worst Experiment

OBJECTIVES

To measure Australian population preferences for lung cancer screening and to explore whether these preferences are related to respondent characteristics and lung cancer risk.

METHODS

An online ranking task was administered to a sample of 521 Australians between the ages of 50 and 80 with a history of cigarette smoking. Choice sets contained 2 alternative lungs screens and an opt-out, and respondents were asked to rank the 3 options. Both conditional logit and mixed logit analyses were conducted exploring both the forced choice between the 2 screens and identifying the types of respondent most likely to opt out of any screening. For this, respondent 6-year lung cancer risk was estimated and used as a covariate.

RESULTS

Respondents valued tests that involved breath or blood tests in addition to computerized tomography (CT), locations that were close to home, receiving results quickly, and minimizing radiation from the CT scan. Willingness to pay differed between relatively higher and lower risk individuals; higher risk individuals placed greater emphasis on convenience, result timeliness, and radiation. Respondent characteristics that predicted opting out of any screening included being male, fewer years of smoking, and not having a previous cancer diagnosis. Lung cancer risk did not influence the likelihood of opting out.

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of lung cancer screening is likely to be changeable if different modalities of screening are provided, with effects likely differing across population subgroups.

Physician preferences for chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in China: evidence from multicentre discrete choice experiments

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate physician risk-benefit preferences and trade-offs when making chemotherapy decisions for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment (DCE).

SETTINGS

Tertiary hospitals in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chengdu of China.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 184 physicians (mean age of 37 years) with more than 1 year of NSCLC chemotherapy practice.

OUTCOMES

The DCE survey was constructed by six attributes: progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), risk of moderate side effects, risk of severe side effects, mode of administration and out-of-pocket costs. Physicians' relative preferences and trade-offs in patient out-of-pocket costs for each attribute level were estimated using a mixed logit model, and interaction terms were added to the model to assess preferences variation among physicians with different sociodemographic factors.

RESULTS

Physicians had the strongest preferences for improvements in PFS, followed by reducing the risk of severe side effects. The DCR, risk of moderate side effects and mode of administration were ranked in decreasing order of importance. There was little variation in preferences among physicians with different sociodemographic characteristics. Physicians were willing to trade $4814 (95% CI $4149 to $5480) of patient out-of-pocket costs per month for a chemotherapy that guaranteed 11 months of PFS, followed by $1908 (95% CI $1227 to $2539) for reducing the risk of severe side effects to 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to chemotherapy for patients with NSCLC, prolonging PFS, reducing severe and moderate side effects were primary considerations for physicians in China. The mode of administration and treatment costs significantly influenced physicians' therapeutic decision. The current findings could add some evidence to inform NSCLC chemotherapy implementation and promote shared decision-making.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patient Preferences for First-Line Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background. There has been much innovation in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in recent years. In particular, use of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has been growing. Methods. Patients with NSCLC in the United States were surveyed online using a discrete choice experiment to elicit first-line (1L) treatment preferences across six treatment attributes: survival, adverse events (AEs), mechanism of action (MOA), subsequent treatment options (STOs), genetic testing treatment delay, and out-of-pocket cost (OOPC). Preferences were estimated using a latent-class model. Preference shares were estimated for IO-IO, IO-chemo, and chemo-like regimens. Results. Of the 199 patients who completed the survey, 55% were male, 76% were white, 19% had not begun or were on 1L treatment, and the median age was 43 years. Based on a latent-class model with 3 preference classes, 53.0% of patients considered survival and OOPC alone and were less likely to choose an option with a higher OOPC and lower survival, 12.7% of patients were likely to choose the more expensive option, and for 34.3% of patients, survival, AE risk, and treatment delays all significantly influenced choices. MOA and STOs did not significantly influence treatment choices in any preference class. Approximately 53%, 27%, and 20% of patients preferred IO-IO-like, IO-chemo-like, and chemo-like regimens in 1L, respectively. Respondents were younger, more likely to be Caucasian, and more likely to speak English than the general NSCLC patient population. Conclusions. OOPC, effectiveness, treatment delays, and safety influenced NSCLC patients' 1L treatment decisions, and most patients preferred an IO-IO followed by IO-chemo-like regimen in 1L. Cancer treatment decisions are complex and patient preferences are unique; therefore, patients' treatment objectives should be discussed in shared treatment decision making.

Analysis of Patient Preferences in Lung Cancer - Estimating Acceptable Tradeoffs Between Treatment Benefit and Side Effects

OBJECTIVE

Increased treatment options and longer survival for lung cancer have generated increased interest in patient preferences. Previous studies of patient preferences in lung cancer have not fully explored preference heterogeneity. We demonstrate a method to explore preference heterogeneity in the willingness of patients with lung cancer and caregivers to trade progression-free survival (PFS) with side effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients and caregivers attending a national lung cancer meeting completed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) designed through a collaboration with patients. Participants answered 13 choice tasks described across PFS, short-term side effects, and four long-term side effects. Side effects were coded as a one-level change in severity (none-mild, mild-moderate, or moderate-severe). A mixed logit model in willingness-to-pay space estimated preference heterogeneity in acceptable tradeoffs (time equivalents) between PFS and side effects. The study was reported following quality indicators from the United States Food and Drug Administration's patient preference guidance.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients and 24 caregivers participated in the DCE. Participants would trade 3.7 month PFS (95% CI (CI): 3.3-4.1) for less severe functional long-term treatment side effects, 2.3 months for less severe physical long-term effects (CI: 1.9-2.8) and cognitive long-term effects (CI: 1.8-2.8), 0.9 months (CI: 0.4-1.4) for less severe emotional long-term effects, and 1.8 months (CI: 1.4-2.3) for less severe short-term side effects. Most participants (90%) would accept treatment with more severe functional long-term effects for 8.4 additional month PFS.

CONCLUSION

Participants would trade PFS for changes in short-term side effects and long-term side effects, although preference heterogeneity existed. Lung cancer treatments that offer less PFS but also less severe side effects might be acceptable to some patients.

The Value of Hope: Patients' and Physicians' Preferences for Survival in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Immuno-oncology treatments offer patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment options with greater probability of durable survival and a different toxicity profile compared with traditional chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to explore the importance of increases in the probability of long-term survival versus changes in expected (median) survival and treatment toxicities among patients with advanced NSCLC and physicians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a discrete-choice experiment, oncologists and patients diagnosed with NSCLC chose between profiles of treatments for advanced NSCLC offering different combinations of benefits (expected, best-case, and worst-case survival) and risks. We analyzed preference data from each sample using a random-parameters logit model that controls for preference heterogeneity and the panel nature of the data.

RESULTS

Both patients and physicians expressed a strong preference for improving the probability of best-case survival; however, patients viewed increases in the probability of long-term survival as more important than increases in expected survival, while the opposite was true for physicians. Both patients and physicians weighted survival to be more important than toxicities.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a potentially important divergence between physician and patient perspectives on survival statistics. Physicians placed more importance on increases in expected survival than did patients with NSCLC. The importance patients placed on long-term survival reinforce previous research identifying the primacy of hope as a value among seriously ill patients. The findings underscore the importance of considering patients' priorities and in shared decision-making when choosing treatment.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival as a Treatment End Point Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of the Literature

IMPORTANCE

It is unclear whether patients with advanced cancer value surrogate end points, particularly progression-free survival (PFS). Despite this uncertainty, surrogate end points form the basis of regulatory approval for the majority of new cancer treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and qualitatively assess studies evaluating whether patients with advanced cancer understand and value PFS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from database inception to November 12, 2018. Articles eligible for inclusion investigated patient understanding, preference, or perceived value of disease progression or PFS in the setting of advanced cancer. Three authors independently reviewed and extracted data from all studies eligible for inclusion.

FINDINGS

In total, 17 studies representing 3646 patients were included. Of these studies, 15 specifically aimed to assess patients' values toward, and their willingness to trade off toxic effects for gains or losses in the end point of PFS. All studies examined used widely disparate definitions when attempting to describe the meaning of PFS to patients. Ten studies specifically presented patients with the term progression-free survival as an attribute choice. In the words used to define the attribute of PFS, 6 studies used the term survival. Five studies clarified that PFS may not translate into better overall survival, and 5 studies explained that improvements in PFS may not reflect how well the patient may feel. No study clarified that a PFS event could represent either progression or death, and no study defined for the patient what constituted progression. The studies assessed herein underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities (mean percentage of white patients, 88%; range, 77%-96%). Values and preferences may vary across cultural backgrounds given that different relative preferences were assigned to cost and efficacy outcomes in North American vs Asian studies, although only a few studies were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The existing literature evaluating patients' understanding, preferences, and values toward the end point of PFS was severely limited by the heterogeneity of methods, attribute selection, and descriptions used to define PFS to patients. High-quality studies are needed that clearly define PFS for patients and that systematically document their understanding of the term. Only then can it be assessed whether PFS is an end point of value to patients with advanced cancer.

Patient preferences for attributes of tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer

Aim: EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) vary in efficacy, side effects (SEs) and dosing regimen. We explored EGFR-TKI treatment attribute preferences in EGFR mutation-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials & methods: Patients completed a survey utilizing preference elicitation methods: direct elicitation of four EGFR-TKI profiles describing progression-free survival (PFS), severe SE risk, administration; discrete choice experiment involving 12 choice tasks. Results: 90 participated. The preferred profile (selected 89% of times) had the longest PFS (18 months) and the lowest severe SE risk (5%). Patients would need compensation with ≥three-times longer PFS for severe SEs. Patients would accept ≤7 months PFS reduction for oral treatments versus intravenous. Conclusion: Patients preferred longer PFS but were willing to accept reduced PFS for more favorable SEs and dosing convenience.

Patient-Defined Treatment Success: Perspectives of Patients With Advanced-Stage Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

In the United States, lung cancer accounts for 14% of cancer diagnoses and 28% of cancer deaths annually. Because no cure exists for advanced lung cancer, the primary treatment goal is to prolong survival.

OBJECTIVES

The study aim was to determine whether individual preferences, characteristics, and treatment experiences affect the meaning of treatment success.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A quantitative study using an observational, longitudinal cohort of patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer was conducted. Data sources included medical records and patient interviews. Data were analyzed using χ², Fisher's exact, and McNemar's tests, as well as logistic regressions.

RESULTS

At the first interview of 235 individuals, 12% considered survival alone as their definition of treatment success; others defined treatment success as survival plus other aspects, such as quality of life and reaching an important personal goal. As they moved through chemotherapy, 47% of the patients changed their definition of treatment success. Bivariate analysis showed that patients with lower incomes tended to be more likely to change their definition of treatment success compared with their counterparts with higher income (P = .0245).

CONCLUSION

By taking chemotherapy, patients expect to increase their odds of survival and want to maintain the quality of life and functionality. A patient's definition of treatment success is often changing as treatment continues, making it appropriate to ensure patient-provider communication throughout their clinical care. The study results are limited to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and drawn from a predominantly white patient population, mainly from the US Midwest.

Patient Preferences Concerning Alternative Treatments for Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results of the "PIANO-Study"

OBJECTIVES

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, slow-growing malignant tumors. So far, there are no data on patient preferences regarding its therapy. This empirical study aimed to elicit patient preferences in the drug treatment of NET.

METHODS

Based on qualitative patient interviews and an analytic hierarchy process, six patient-relevant attributes were analyzed and weighted using a discrete-choice experiment. Patients were recruited with the help of a NET support group. An experimental 3*3 + 6*3 -MNL design was created using NGene. The design consisted of eighty-four choices, divided into seven blocks. Participants were randomly assigned to these blocks. The analysis included random parameter logit and latent class models.

RESULTS

A total of 275 participants (51.6 percent female; mean age, 58.4 years) were included. The preference analysis within the random parameter logit model, taking into account the 95 percent confidence interval, showed predominance for the attribute "overall survival." The attributes "response to treatment" and "stabilization of tumor growth" followed. The side effects "nausea/vomiting" and "diarrhea" were considered of relatively equal importance. Latent class analysis of possible subgroup differences revealed three preference patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences can influence therapeutic decisions. Preference analyses indicated that "overall survival" had the strongest influence, with participants clearly weighing outcome attributes higher than side effect attributes. In conclusion, mono-criterial decisions would not fully reflect patient perspectives.

Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding early stage lung cancer treatment decision making

INTRODUCTION

With advances in treatments among patients with lung cancer, it is increasingly important to understand patients' values and preferences to facilitate shared decision making.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter study of patients with treated stage I lung cancer. At the time of study participation, participants were 4-6 months posttreatment. Value clarification and discrete choice methods were used to elicit participants' values and treatment preferences regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection using only treatment attributes.

RESULTS

Among 114 participants, mean age was 70 years (Standard Deviation = 7.9), 65% were male, 68 (60%) received SBRT and 46 (40%) received surgery. More participants valued independence and quality of life (QOL) as "most important" compared to survival or cancer recurrence. Most participants (83%) were willing to accept lung cancer treatment with a 2% chance of periprocedural death for only one additional year of life. Participants also valued independence more than additional years of life as most (86%) were unwilling to accept either permanent placement in a nursing home or being limited to a bed/chair for four additional years of life. Surprisingly, treatment discordance was common as 49% of participants preferred the alternative lung cancer treatment than what they received.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with early stage lung cancer, maintaining independence and QOL were more highly valued than survival or cancer recurrence. Participants were willing to accept high periprocedural mortality, but not severe deficits affecting QOL when considering treatment. Treatment discordance was common among participants who received SBRT or surgery. Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to foster shared decision making and ensure treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals. Clinicians need more resources to engage in high quality communication during lung cancer treatment discussions.

Treatment preferences of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a haematological malignancy characterized by significant morbidity and mortality. This study sought to develop an in-depth understanding of patients' lived experiences of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and its treatment, and to identify which features of treatment were most important to them.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) were conducted with 32 people living with RRMM across Canada. In Phase 1, interviews focused on participants' accounts of their experiences with the disease and its treatment and laid the groundwork for the FGs (Phase 2). The FGs developed a deeper understanding of patients' treatment priorities. Interview and FG transcripts were coded for emergent themes and patterns.

RESULTS

The interviews identified important side effects that had significant impacts on patients' lives, including physical, cognitive, and psychological/emotional side effects. Participants also identified specific treatment features (attributes) that were important to them. These were compiled into a list and used in the FGs to understand patients' priorities. Higher prioritized attributes were: life expectancy, physical and cognitive side effects, and financial impact. Mode of administration, treatment intervals, psychological side effects, and sleep/mood effects were identified as lower priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

RRMM and its treatments impact importantly on patients' quality-of-life across a range of domains. Patients prioritized treatment features that could enhance life expectancy, minimize side effects and offset financial burdens.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

A clear articulation of patient priorities can contribute to efforts to design treatment with patients' concerns in mind, thereby promoting a more patient-centered approach to care.