What Does Society Value About Cancer Medicines? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Belgian Population

Transarterial Radioembolization Versus Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life

Introduction

Given the relatively short life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), quality of life (QOL) plays a significant role in treatment selection. This analysis aimed to compare time to deterioration (TTD) in QOL with transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as well as sorafenib, in advanced and unresectable HCC.

Methods

Patient-level data from SARAH (TARE using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib) and aggregate data from IMbrave150 (atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib) randomized controlled trials were used to conduct an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Patients with a Child–Pugh score B in SARAH were excluded to align with exclusion criteria in IMbrave150. To identify potential effect modifiers for adjustment, the literature was searched and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were implemented using SARAH data. Patients from SARAH were then weighted to balance with baseline characteristics from IMbrave150. Median TTD in QOL and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated.

Results

Four potential effect modifiers were identified and used for adjustment: cause of disease (viral/non-viral), macrovascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and alpha-fetoprotein level. The MAIC included 217 patients from SARAH (TARE = 94; sorafenib = 123). Median TTD in QOL was 11.23 and 8.64 months for atezolizumab–bevacizumab and TARE, respectively (HR = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–1.50; p = 0.725). A sensitivity analysis was conducted adjusting for cause of disease defined as hepatitis B/hepatitis C/non-viral: median TTD in QOL was higher for TARE compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab (19.88 vs 11.23 months; HR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.36–1.19; p = 0.163). Sorafenib resulted in the shortest TTD in QOL, with statistically significant differences in both base case and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

TARE using SIR-Spheres may achieve similar TTD in QOL compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as the analyses found no statistically significant differences between these two interventions. Both TARE using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to be more efficacious than sorafenib in maintaining QOL.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02099-0.

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as physicians treating hepatocellular carcinoma, the quality of life that different treatments can offer represents an increasingly important aspect to consider when choosing treatments. Transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab are two potential treatments for advanced and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes of these two therapeutic options. With the data available (patient-level data from a clinical trial of transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib and data from a trial of atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib from the literature), this study indirectly compared the time to deterioration of quality of life (i.e., how long quality of life is maintained) after treatment with transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab. The study showed that quality of life may be preserved over a similar time period with transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab; also, both transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to maintain patients’ quality of life over a longer period of time compared with sorafenib. These results are expected to enrich the existing evidence on which patients and physicians can base their decisions, allowing them to choose the most appropriate treatment by assessing the treatments’ characteristics as a whole.

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.