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

Patient Preferences for Benefit and Risk Associated With High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the Ablation of Prostate Tissue in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Food and Drug Administration must make decisions about emerging high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) devices that may lack relevant clinical oncologic data but present with known side effects. This study aims to capture patients' perspective by quantifying their preferences regarding the available benefit and important side effects associated with HIFU for localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preferences for HIFU outcomes were examined using a discrete choice experiment survey. Participants were asked to choose a preferred treatment option in 9 choice questions. Each included a pair of hypothetical treatment profiles that have similar attributes/outcomes with varying levels. Outcomes included prostate biopsy outcome and treatment-related risks of erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI). We calculated the maximum risk of side effect patients were willing to tolerate in exchange for increased benefit. Preferences were further explored via clinical and demographic data.

RESULTS

About 223 subjects with a mean age of 64.8 years completed the survey. Respondents were willing to accept a 1.51%-point increase in new ED risk for a 1%-point increase in favorable biopsy outcome. They were also willing to accept a 0.93%-point increase in new UI risk for a 1%-point increase in biopsy outcome. Subjects who perceived their cancer to be more aggressive had higher risk tolerance for UI. Younger men were willing to tolerate less ED risk than older men. Respondents with greater than college level of education had a lower risk tolerance for ED or UI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results may inform development and regulatory evaluation for future HIFU ablation devices by providing supplemental information from the patient perspective.

Discrete-Choice Experiment to Understand the Preferences of Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the USA, Canada, and the UK

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have broadened, and treatment decisions can have a long-lasting impact on patients' quality of life. Data on patient preferences can improve therapeutic decision-making by helping physicians suggest treatments that align with patients' values and needs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to quantify patient preferences for attributes of chemohormonal therapies among patients with mHSPC in the USA, Canada, and the UK.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment survey instrument was developed and administered to patients with high- and very-high-risk localized prostate cancer and mHSPC. Patients chose between baseline androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and experimentally designed, hypothetical treatment alternatives representing chemohormonal therapies. Choices were analyzed using logit models to derive the relative importance of attributes for each country and to evaluate differences and similarities among patients across countries.

RESULTS

A total of 550 respondents completed the survey (USA, 200; Canada, 200; UK, 150); the mean age of respondents was 64.3 years. Treatment choices revealed that patients were most concerned with treatment efficacy. However, treatment-related convenience factors, such as route of drug administration and frequency of monitoring visits, were as important as some treatment-related side effects, such as skin rash, nausea, and fatigue. Patient preferences across countries were similar, although patients in Canada appeared to be more affected by concomitant steroid use.

CONCLUSION

Patients with mHSPC believe the use of ADT alone is insufficient when more effective treatments are available. Efficacy is the most significant driver of patient choices. Treatment-related convenience factors can be as important as safety concerns for patients.

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis.

METHODS

This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related.

INTERPRETATION

Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis.

FUNDING

Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Assessment of patients' preferences for new anticancer drugs in China: a best-worst discrete choice experiment on three common cancer types

OBJECTIVES

Despite the advancement in anticancer drug therapies, cancer treatment decisions are often complex and preference-sensitive, making them well suited for studying shared decision-making (SDM). Our study aimed to assess preferences for new anticancer drugs among three common types of patients with cancer to inform SDM.

DESIGN

We identified five attributes of new anticancer drugs and used a Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice sets for a best-worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE). The mixed logit regression model was applied to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity.

SETTING

The BWDCE was conducted in Jiangsu province and Hebei province in China.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 years or older, who had a definite diagnosis of lung cancer, breast cancer or colorectal cancer were recruited.

RESULTS

Data from 468 patients were available for analysis. On average, the most valued attribute was the improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (p<0.001). The low incidence of severe to life-threatening side effects, prolonged progression-free survival and the low incidence of mild to moderate side effects were also positive predictors of patients' preferences (p<0.001). Out-of-pocket cost was a negative predictor of their preferences (p<0.001). According to subgroup analysis by type of cancer, the improvement in HRQoL remained the most valuable attribute. However, the relative importance of other attributes varied by type of cancer. Whether patients were newly diagnosed or previously diagnosed cancer cases played a dominant role in the preference heterogeneity within each subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study can assist in the implementation of SDM by providing evidence on patients' preferences for new anticancer drugs. Patients should be informed of the multiattribute values of new drugs and encouraged to make decisions reflecting their values.

Clinical outcomes and treatment patterns in REASSURE: planned interim analysis of a real-world observational study of radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Background

Radium-223, a targeted alpha therapy, is approved to treat bone-dominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), based on significantly prolonged overall survival versus placebo and a favourable safety profile in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA study. ALSYMPCA was conducted when few other treatment options were available, and prospectively collected data are limited on the use of radium-223 in the current mCRPC treatment landscape. We sought to understand long-term safety and treatment patterns in men who received radium-223 in real-world clinical practice.

Methods

REASSURE (NCT02141438) is a global, prospective, observational study of radium-223 in men with mCRPC. Primary outcomes are adverse events (AEs), including treatment-emergent serious AEs (SAEs) and drug-related AEs during and ≤30 days after radium-223 completion, grade 3/4 haematological toxicities ≤6 months after last radium-223 dose, drug-related SAEs after radium-223 therapy completion, and second primary malignancies.

Findings

Data collection commenced on Aug 20, 2014, and the data cutoff date for this prespecified interim analysis was Mar 20, 2019 (median follow-up 11.5 months [interquartile range 6.0-18.6]), 1465 patients were evaluable. For second primary malignancies, 1470 patients were evaluable, 21 (1%) of whom had a total of 23 events. During radium-223 therapy, 311 (21%) of 1465 patients had treatment-emergent SAEs, and 510 (35%) had drug-related AEs. In the 6 months after completion of radium-223 therapy, 214 (15%) patients had grade 3/4 haematological toxicities. Eighty patients (5%) had post-treatment drug-related SAEs. Median overall survival was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval 14.6-16.5) from radium-223 initiation. Patient-reported pain scores declined or stabilised. Seventy (5%) patients had fractures.

Interpretation

REASSURE offers insight into radium-223 use in global real-world clinical practice with currently available therapies. At this interim analysis, with a median follow-up of almost 1 year, 1% of patients had second primary malignancies, and safety and overall survival findings were consistent with clinical trial experience. Final analysis of REASSURE is due in 2024.

Funding

Bayer HealthCare.

Eliciting men's preferences for decision-making relative to treatments of localized prostate cancer with a good or moderate prognosis

PURPOSE

In diseases where there is no real consensus regarding treatment modalities, promoting shared decision-making can contribute to improving safety and quality of care. This is the case in low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer (PC) treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the preferences guiding men's decisions regarding the characteristics of the treatment strategies for PC to help physicians adopt a more patient-centered approach.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter study used a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The attributes and the modalities were identified from a qualitative study and a literature review. Relative preferences were estimated using a logistic regression model. Interaction terms (demographic, clinical and socio-economic characteristics) were added to the model to assess heterogeneity in preferences.

RESULTS

652 men were enrolled in the study and completed a questionnaire with 12 pairs of hypothetical therapeutic alternatives between which they had to choose. Men's choices were significantly negatively influenced by the risk of impotence and urinary incontinence, death, and the length and frequency of care. They preferred treatments with a rescue possibility in case of deterioration or recurrence and the use of innovative technology. Surprisingly, the possibility of undergoing prostate ablation negatively influenced their choice. The results also highlighted differences in trade-offs according to socio-economic level.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the importance of considering patients' preferences in the decision-making process. It appears essential to better understand these preferences to allow physicians to improve communication and promote case-by-case decision-making.

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.

Design setting and participants

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.

Results and limitations

Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.

Conclusions

Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.

Patient summary

We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Real-world evidence of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with cabazitaxel: comparison with the randomized clinical study CARD

BACKGROUND

The CARD study demonstrated superiority of cabazitaxel over abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who received prior docetaxel and progressed ≤12 months on the alternative androgen-receptor-targeted agent (ARTA). The objective was to compare characteristics and treatment patterns of patients from a real-world dataset with the CARD population.

METHODS

Real-world data were collected from Medimix Live TrackerTM, a retrospective, global oncology database of healthcare professional-reported electronic patient medical forms (2001-2019), with data from patients from Europe, USA, Brazil and Japan. The database contained patient, tumor and treatment information for 12,140 patients who received ≥1 line of treatment for mCRPC. A CARD-like cohort included patients treated with docetaxel, prior abiraterone/enzalutamide and cabazitaxel.

RESULTS

A large proportion of patients received ≥2 lines of ARTA (35.1%) with 42% of patients who received a first-line ARTA receiving another ARTA in second line. Of the total patients, 452 were eligible for the CARD-like cohort. Median age of the CARD-like cohort was comparable to CARD (73 vs 70 years). The CARD-like cohort had unfavorable disease characteristics vs CARD: ECOG PS ≥ 2 (45% vs 4.7%); metastasis at diagnosis (46% vs 38%) and Gleason 8-10 (65% vs 57%). More patients in the CARD-like cohort received ARTA before docetaxel (48% vs 39%) and received the first ARTA for >12 months (30% vs 17%) compared with CARD. Despite more patients in the CARD-like cohort receiving the lower 20 mg/m2 dose of cabazitaxel (55% vs 21%), cabazitaxel treatment duration was similar (21.9 vs 22.0 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential use of ARTA was frequent. Results indicate the CARD population is reflective of routine clinical practice and duration of response to cabazitaxel was similar in a real-world population.

Understanding what matters to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients when considering treatment options: A US patient preference survey

BACKGROUND

Understanding how patients perceive the efficacy, safety, and administrative burden of treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can facilitate shared-decision making for optimal management. This study sought to elicit patient preferences for mCRPC treatments in the US.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey using the discrete-choice experiment method. Participants were asked to state their choices over successive sets of treatment alternatives, defined by varying levels of treatment attributes: overall survival (OS), months until patients develop a fracture or bone metastasis, likelihood of requiring radiation to control bone pain, fatigue, nausea, and administration (i.e., oral/IV injection/IV infusion). Using mixed logit models, we determined the value (i.e., preference weights) that respondents placed on each attribute. Relative attribute importance (RAI) and marginal rates of substitution (MRS) were calculated to understand patients' willingness to make tradeoffs among different attributes.

RESULTS

The final data set numbered 160 participants, with a mean age of 71.6 years old and a mean of 8.96 years since prostate cancer diagnosis. Participants' treatment preferences were as follows: OS (RAI: 31%), bone pain control (23%), nausea (16%), delaying fracture or bone metastasis (15%), fatigue (11%), and administration (3%). The MRS demonstrated that respondents were willing to trade 1.9 months of OS to eliminate moderate nausea and 3.3 months of OS for a reduction in fatigue from severe to mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving OS is the highest priority for patients with mCRPC, but they are willing to trade some survival to reduce the risk of requiring radiation to control bone pain, delay a fracture or bone metastasis, and experience less severe nausea and fatigue.

Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

BACKGROUND

Targeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy.

METHODS

We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies.

RESULTS

The review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.

Combining Radiotherapy (RT) and Photodynamic Therapy (PDT): Clinical Studies on Conventional RT-PDT Approaches and Novel Nanoparticle-Based RT-PDT Approaches under Preclinical Evaluation

Radiotherapy (RT) is the primary standard of care for many locally advanced cancers. Often times, however, the efficacy of RT is limited due to radio-resistance that cancer cells develop. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has gained importance as an alternative local therapy. Because its mechanism involves minimal acquired resistance, PDT is a useful adjunct to RT. This review discusses recent advances in combining RT with PDT for cancer treatment. In the first part of this review, we will discuss clinical trials on RT + PDT combination therapies. All these approaches suffer from the same inherent limitations as any current PDT methods; (i) visible light has a short penetration depth in human tissue (&lt;∼10 mm), and (ii) it is difficult to illuminate the entire tumor homogeneously by external/interstitial laser irradiation. To address these limitations, scintillating nanoparticle-mediated RT-PDT approaches have been explored in which nanoparticles convert X-rays (RT) into visible light (PDT); high-energy X-rays can reach deep into the body to irradiate cancers uniformly and precisely. The second part of this review will discuss recent efforts in developing and applying nanoparticles for RT-PDT applications.

Real-world patient characteristics associated with survival of 2 years or more after radium-223 treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (EPIX study)

Background

The real-world EPIX study was conducted to gather information about the characteristics of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who survived ≥2 years after treatment with the alpha-emitter radium-223.

Methods

This retrospective study of electronic health records in the US Flatiron database (NCT04516161) included patients with mCRPC treated with radium-223 between January 2013 and June 2019. Median overall survival (OS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% reduction) from start of radium-223 treatment were the primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. Patient characteristics were compared between those who survived ≥2 years versus <2 years, including a subgroup who survived <6 months.

Results

In the 1180 patients identified, median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 12.1–13.7), and 13% of patients with data at 6 months had a PSA response. The survival groups included 775 patients (65.7%) who survived <2 years (including 264 (22.4%) who survived <6 months) and 185 patients (15.7%) who survived ≥2 years; 220 patients (18.6%) had incomplete follow-up data and were censored. On multivariate analysis, age >75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2–4, visceral metastases, prior symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), and prior chemotherapy were independently prognostic of reduced OS. For patients with survival ≥2 years versus <2 years, median age was 71 versus 75 years, 4% versus 14% had ECOG PS 2–4, 4% versus 10% had visceral metastases, 38% versus 44% had prior SSEs, and 16% versus 32% had prior chemotherapy.

Conclusions

In this study of men with mCRPC treated in real-world clinical practice, median OS was consistent with that seen in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial. Patients who survived ≥2 years after the start of radium-223 were younger and had better ECOG PS, lower disease burden, and less use of prior chemotherapy than those who survived <2 years.

One Fraction Size Does Not Fit All: Patient Preferences for Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy From a Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a standard of care option for localized prostate cancer. To inform clinical practice we quantified patients' preferences for convenience, efficacy, and toxicity risks, of conventional, moderate hypofractionation, and stereotactic radiation therapy regimens.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We used a discrete choice experiment with a voluntary sample consisting of patients treated with EBRT for localized prostate cancer at our academic cancer center. In 2019, 58 participants, mean (SD) age of 72.9 (7.1) years, agreed to complete an in-person 1:1 discrete choice experiment. Each participant made 12 choices between 2 unique EBRT scenarios, each described by 5 attributes: (1) treatment time; (2) fiducial markers; and risk of (3) prostate specific antigen recurrence; (4) acute and (5) late GI or GU toxicity. Patient preferences were estimated using mixed multinomial logistic regression, and prespecified subgroups with conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

All attributes were statistically significant, thus influenced participants' choices. Risks of prostate specific antigen recurrence (β = -2.581), late (β = -1.854), and acute (β = -1.005) toxicity were most important to participants (P < .001 for each), followed by EBRT length (β = -0.728; P = .017) and fiducial marker implantation (β = -0.563; P = .004). Older (β = -0.063; 95% confidence interval, -0.12, -0.01) and rural (β = -0.083; 95% CI -0.14, -0.02) participants significantly preferred shorter EBRT and were less willing-to-extend treatment to reduce toxicity risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with prostate cancer place importance on EBRT attributes, and some are willing to trade-off increased risk of toxicity for improved convenience. Our findings promote shared clinical decision-making because patients are interested in learning about the trade-offs involved.

Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.

CONCLUSION

The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low certainty). Patients continue to value oncological benefits in making decisions on treatments under qualitative assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients' preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.

Metastatic prostate cancer men's attitudes towards treatment of the local tumour and metastasis evaluative research (IP5-MATTER): protocol for a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment study

INTRODUCTION

Systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensification with agents such as docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide has resulted in improved overall survival in men with de novo synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Novel local cytoreductive treatments and metastasis-directed therapy are now being evaluated. Such interventions may provide added survival benefit or delay the requirement for further systemic agents and associated toxicity but can confer additional harm. Understanding men's preferences for treatment options in this disease state is crucial for patients, clinicians, carers and future healthcare service providers.

METHODS

Using a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment (DCE), we aim to determine the attributes associated with treatment that are most important to men with mHSPC. Furthermore, we plan to determine men's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes (survival and side effects) of different treatment options including systemic therapy, local cytoreductive approaches (external beam radiotherapy, cytoreductive radical prostatectomy or minimally invasive ablative therapy) and metastases-directed therapies (metastasectomy or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy). All men with newly diagnosed mHSPC within 4 months of commencing ADT and WHO performance status 0-2 are eligible. Men who have previously consented to a cytoreductive treatment or have developed castrate-resistant disease will be excluded. This study includes a qualitative analysis component, with patients (n=15) and healthcare professionals (n=5), to identify and define the key attributes associated with treatment options that would warrant trade-off evaluation in a DCE. The main phase component planned recruitment is 300 patients over 1 year, commencing in January 2021, with planned study completion in March 2022.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Research Authority East of England, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/EE/0194). Project information will be reported on the publicly available Imperial College London website and the Heath Economics Research Unit (HERU website including the HERU Blog). We will use the social media accounts of IP5-MATTER, Imperial Prostate London, HERU and the individual researchers to disseminate key findings following publication. Findings from the study will be presented at national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Authorship policy will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04590976.

Prostate cancer treatment and the relationship of androgen deprivation therapy to cognitive function

Prostate cancer is the second most common form of cancer in men. For advanced, high risk prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the preferred treatment and can induce remission, but resistance to ADT brings biochemical recurrence and progression of cancer. ADT brings adverse effects such as erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, and diminished physical strength. It is estimated that between 25 and 50% of men on ADT manifest some form of cognitive dysfunction that may be self-reported or reported by a family member. There is concern that impaired cognitive function with ADT is due to loss of testosterone support. Testosterone and its metabolites are known to possess neuroprotective properties. While a direct causal relationship between ADT and cognitive decline in prostate cancer patients has not been established, this review describes the controversy surrounding the possible connection between ADT and neurocognitive deterioration. The cellular and molecular mechanisms believed to underlie the protection of neuronal integrity by androgens are discussed. Results from animal models and human clinical studies are presented. Finally, we call attention to lifestyle modifications that may minimize cognitive issues in prostate cancer patients.

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.

Real-world outcomes of second novel hormonal therapy or radium-223 following first novel hormonal therapy for mCRPC

Aim: To evaluate real-world clinical outcomes of radium-223 or alternative novel hormonal therapy (NHT) following first-line NHT for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients & methods: Retrospective analysis of the US Flatiron database (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03896984). Results: In the radium-223 cohort (n = 120) versus the alternative NHT cohort (n = 226), proportionally more patients had prior symptomatic skeletal events and bone-only metastases, and first-line NHT duration was shorter. Following second-line therapy, 49 versus 39% of patients received subsequent life-prolonging therapy; of these, 47 versus 76% received taxane. Median overall survival was 10.8 versus 11.2 months. Conclusion: Real-world patients with mCRPC had similar median overall survival following second-line radium-223 or alternative NHT after first-line NHT. Many patients received subsequent therapy, with less taxane use after radium-223.

Unmet needs in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer from the Japanese patient perspective: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

With novel antiandrogen treatments of varying clinical benefits and risks becoming available, this study investigates how patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) value differences in treatment characteristics.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Patients chose between two hypothetical non-metastatic CRPC (nmCRPC) treatments defined by six attributes: risk of fatigue, falls or fracture, cognitive impairment, hypertension, rashes as side effects to treatment and extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 137 adult male patients with CRPC with no prior experience with chemotherapy and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0-1 were recruited. Patients were excluded if they participated in an investigational programme outside of routine clinical practice, had a clinically relevant medical or psychiatric condition, or diagnosis of visceral/other metastases not related to the prostate, or were otherwise deemed ineligible by the referring physician.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Relative preference weights and relative importance of the attributes was estimated by hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among the treatment attributes, 'risk of cognitive impairment as a side effect of treatment' was the most important attribute (relative importance (RI) (95% CI): 27.47% (24.80% to 30.14%)), followed by 'extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs' (RI (95% CI): 17.87% (15.49% to 20.25%)) and the 'risk of falls or fracture' (RI (95% CI): 15.99% (14.73% to 17.25%)). The 'risk of hypertension as a side effect of treatment' (RI (95% CI): 13.77% (12.73% to 14.81%)) had similar RI as 'risk of rashes as a side effect of treatment' (RI (95% CI): 13.17% (12.15% to 14.19%)), followed by the 'risk of fatigue as a side effect of treatment' (RI (95% CI): 11.74% (10.75% to 12.73%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients consider the risk of cognitive impairment as a side effect of treatment as the most important attribute in nmCRPC, followed by the extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs, and the risk of falls and fracture. These features should be considered in treatment decision making for nmCRPC in Japan.

Patients' preferences for delaying metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Combining health state and treatment valuation

PURPOSE

Men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) experience disease progression at different rates. The purpose of this study was to quantify the strength of patient preferences for delaying prostate cancer progression utilizing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and valuing 3 health states in the continuum of CRPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men with CRPC, recruited from US patient panels, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. The survey consisted of vignette-based time trade-off and a DCE designed to quantify patients' willingness to pay to delay metastatic CRPC. Three health states were presented: (1) living with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) (2) living with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) before chemotherapy, and (3) living with mCRPC either on or after chemotherapy. The DCE consisted of 15 hypothetical choices with attributes characterizing CRPC (pain, fatigue, out of pocket cost, dosing, and time until cancer metastasizes). Patients' willingness to pay for changes in each attribute were derived.

RESULTS

A total of 176 patients with CRPC were surveyed (mean age: 64.2 years; 74% nmCRPC). Patients valued the nmCRPC health state (0.865) significantly higher than mCRPC before chemotherapy (0.743) or mCRPC on or after chemotherapy (0.476), both P < 0.001. In the DCE, patient treatment valuation was most affected by increasing the number of months until cancer metastasized; patients were willing to pay an additional $682 per month to delay time to metastases from 6 to 24 months (95% Confidence Interval: $387-$977) and additional $1,041 per month to delay time to metastasis to 48 months (95% Confidence Interval: $591-$1,490).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrated men with CRPC place significant value on delaying metastases. This study represents the first time 2 stated preference methods, time trade-off and DCE, were used together to understand patients' preferences and valuation of health states in CRPC.

Facing life-prolonging treatment: The perspectives of men with advanced metastatic prostate cancer - An interview study

PURPOSE

Several life-prolonging treatment options have recently become available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, research regarding patient experiences while undergoing these treatments is scarce. The aim was to explore the perspectives of men when facing life-prolonging treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

METHOD

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 men as they were starting, undergoing or had completed their first life-prolonging treatment. Interpretive description was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The results illuminate the complexity of facing life-prolonging treatment, with interlaced dimensions beyond just the outcome, and where the men described other dimensions of their lives in relation to the treatment. The results are presented as 4 themes; Considering treatment when the remainder of life is at stake, Preparing for the life-prolonging treatment after deciding to go through with it, Considering the prospect of the life-prolonging treatment not being successful and Reflecting on death and dying in the light of a life-limiting illness.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality and content of the remainder of life are central for men when facing life-prolonging treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. This is important when weighing desired treatment outcomes against side effects, and when reflecting upon whether going through with treatment would be worth it or not. The results illuminate the importance of encouraging men at this stage to express expectations, hopes and fears regarding the treatment and the future when considering life-prolonging treatments. Nurses working with these patients are important in the decision-making process and in evaluating treatments, to detect needs for interventions.

Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers—regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)—are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making.

Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit–risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes.

Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit–risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making.

Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

Patient and caregiver benefit-risk preferences for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment

Background

Recently approved second‐generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs) for non‐metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have similar efficacy but differ in safety profiles. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine how nmCRPC patients and caregivers perceive the benefits versus risks of these new treatments.

Methods

An online DCE survey with 14 treatment choice questions was administered to nmCRPC patients and caregivers. Each choice question compared two hypothetical medication profiles varying in terms of 5 safety attributes (risk or severity of adverse events [AEs]: fatigue, skin rash, cognitive problems, serious fall, and serious fracture) and two efficacy attributes (duration of overall survival [OS] and time to pain progression). Random parameters logit models were used to estimate each attribute's relative importance. We also estimated the amounts of OS that respondents were willing to forego for a reduction in AEs.

Results

In total, 143 nmCRPC patients and 149 caregivers viewed the AEs in following order of importance (most to least): serious fracture, serious fall, cognitive problems, fatigue, and skin rash. On average, patients were willing to trade 5.8 and 4.0 months of OS to reduce the risk of serious fracture and fall, respectively, from 3% to 0%; caregivers were willing to trade 6.6 and 5.4 months of OS.

Conclusions

nmCRPC patients and caregivers preferred treatments with lower AE burdens and were willing to forego OS to reduce the risk and severity of AEs. Our results highlight the importance of carefully balancing risks and benefits when selecting treatments in this relatively asymptomatic population.

Physician preferences for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Recent approvals of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs) have changed the treatment landscape for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). These SGARIs have similar efficacy but differ in safety profiles. We used a discrete choice experiment to explore how United States physicians make treatment decisions between adverse events (AEs) and survival gains in nmCRPC, a largely asymptomatic disease.

METHODS

Treating physicians (n = 149) participated in an online survey that included 14 treatment choice questions, each comparing 2 hypothetical treatment profiles, which varied in terms of 5 safety and 2 efficacy attributes. We described safety attributes (fatigue, skin rash, cognitive problems, falls, and fractures) in terms of severity and frequency, and efficacy attributes (overall survival [OS] and time to pain progression) in terms of duration of effect. We used a random parameters logit model to estimate preference weights and importance scores for each attribute. We also estimated the amount of survival gain physicians were willing to trade for a reduction in specific AEs between treatment options.

RESULTS

Physicians placed more importance on survival than on time to pain progression, and viewed a reduction in cognitive problems from severe to none, a reduction in risk of a serious fracture from 8% to none, and a reduction in fatigue from severe to none as the most important safety attributes. Physicians were willing to forego 9.1 and 6.6 months of OS, respectively, to reduce cognitive problems and fatigue from severe to mild-to-moderate. To reduce the risk of a serious fracture from 8 to 5% and 5% to none, physicians were willing to trade 3.9 and 5.3 months of OS, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians were willing to trade substantial amounts of survival to avoid AEs between hypothetical treatments. These results emphasize the importance of carefully balancing therapies' benefits and risks to ultimately optimize the overall quality of nmCRPC patients' survival. Nonetheless, it is noted that the results from the study sample of 149 physicans may not be representative of the viewpoints of all nmCRPC-treating physicians.

The impact of patient characteristics on enzalutamide pharmacokinetics and how this relates to treatment toxicity and efficacy in metastatic prostate cancer patients

Purpose

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of patient characteristics, age and body mass index (BMI), on pharmacokinetics of enzalutamide, and to study the relationships between drug exposure and enzalutamide efficacy and toxicity, in mCRPC patients.

Methods

Data were collected in a longitudinal cohort study (ANDROPS) and a prospective observational study (ILUMINATE), both in mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide. To investigate the influence of age and BMI on exposure, enzalutamide and N-desmethylenzalutamide levels were compared by ANOVA. To investigate the relation of exposure versus time to progression (TTP), the sum plasma levels were divided into quartiles and compared by Kaplan–Meier analysis. To assess the relation of exposure with fatigue, plasma levels in patients experiencing fatigue vs. no fatigue were compared by and independent t test.

Results

Data of 68 mCRPC patients were included for analysis. Plasma levels were not different for age or BMI. No difference in TTP between both studies was observed (383 days (95% CI 287–859), and 567 days (95% CI 351–NR), p = 0.36). Kaplan–Meier analysis of quartiles of sum levels showed no difference for TTP. Fatigue was reported by 22 patients, no difference in sum plasma levels was observed between patients with and without fatigue.

Conclusions

We observed that age and BMI did not influence systemic exposure in patients treated with enzalutamide. No relation of exposure with efficacy or fatigue was observed. Further research using enzalutamide at a lower dose is needed to understand the relation of enzalutamide exposure and fatigue.

Patient Preferences for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatments: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Men in Three European Countries

Introduction

Various treatment options are available for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This study aimed to quantify how men with prostate cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and Spain perceive the risks and benefits of hypothetical abiraterone acetate plus prednisone treatment and docetaxel-based chemotherapy treatment options.

Methods

A targeted literature review, exploratory interviews with prostate cancer patients and oncologists, and pre-test interviews were used to develop a discrete choice experiments (DCE). The final DCE included 32 choice sets, selected using a main-effects orthogonal design, divided into two survey blocks. Paired profiles presented hypothetical treatments for prostate cancer through six attributes that could be presented at two or four levels each. Preference estimates were estimated using a conditional logit regression model. Preference results were stratified by cancer stage.

Results

A total of 152 participants (mean age 69 years) completed the DCE in the UK, Germany, and Spain. Treatment effectiveness was the main concern for the patients (difference in preference estimates between 8 and 32 months 1.443). Participants wanted to avoid pain that was not well controlled (preference dummy coding estimate − 1.157). Participants valued a change from an oral medication to an intravenous treatment (change in preference estimate − 0.416) more negatively than a change from a 1% to a 5% risk of infection (change in preference estimate − 0.313).

Conclusions

This study shows that treatment effectiveness and pain control were the most important attributes for patients with prostate cancer. These two attributes influenced more than 50% of their decision-making in this study. The risk of fatigue and mode of administration were least prioritised by patients. This study highlights the relative importance that Spanish, German, and British patients place on various aspects of treatment options for prostate cancer. Understanding patient preference and taking them into consideration shall help physicians when developing their treatment strategies for their patients.

Funding

Janssen.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0861-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

Should we involve patients more actively? Perspectives of the multidisciplinary team on shared decision-making for older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate perspectives of the multidisciplinary team concerning shared decision-making (SDM) in treatment decisions for older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey among Dutch healthcare providers was conducted to assess healthcare providers' perspectives on patient involvement in decision-making and the value of a decision aid (DA) in the decision-making process. Treatment recommendations were assessed using hypothetical cases in which providers were asked to evaluate their likelihood of pursuing listed treatment options.

RESULTS

In total, 170 Dutch healthcare providers, including 82 urologists, 31 oncologists, and 57 oncology nurses completed the survey. Sixty-two percent of urologists, 65% of oncologists, and 51% of oncology nurses found that mCRPC patients take a passive role in decision-making and delegate treatment decisions to doctors due to advanced age (p = .45). Yet, 70% of urologists, 71% of oncologists, and 63% of oncology nurses agreed that mCRPC patients should be always involved in decision-making (p = .91). Fifty-two percent of urologists and 55% of oncologists stated that they are inadequately trained to apply SDM in clinical practice. Conversely, only 20% of oncology nurses believed that oncology nurses are inadequately trained. Fifty-four percent of all providers considered a DA suitable to support these patients and their healthcare providers in the decision-making process. All hypothetical cases showed variation in treatment recommendations among providers, with each of the five treatments ranging from extremely likely to extremely unlikely.

CONCLUSIONS

The wide variation of treatment recommendations observed among the multidisciplinary team suggests that mCRPC patients and their healthcare providers may benefit from implementation of informed SDM. Given the perceived passive role of older patients with mCRPC in decision-making, interventions to engage them are needed. With slightly more than half of respondents finding DAs useful to facilitate the decision-making process, development and implementation of a DA would be an interesting field of research.

Impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or enzalutamide on fatigue and cognition in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: initial results from the observational AQUARiUS study

Introduction

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and enzalutamide (ENZ) are commonly prescribed for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Data comparing their effects on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from routine clinical practice are limited.

Methods

AQUARiUS (NCT02813408) is an ongoing, two-cohort, prospective, observational, non-randomised, multicentre, phase IV European study assessing the effects of AAP and ENZ on PROs in 211 patients with mCRPC over 12 months. Patients receive AAP or ENZ per routine clinical practice. Data on cognition, fatigue, pain and health-related quality of life are measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function, Brief Fatigue Inventory-Short Form, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-C30 questionnaires, respectively.

Results

This 3-month analysis was conducted in 105 patients; 46 received AAP and 59 received ENZ. There were statistically significant differences in mean change from baseline favouring AAP over ENZ at months 1, 2 and 3 for perceived cognitive impairments and cognitive functioning. At each time-point, ENZ-treated patients had a significantly higher risk of experiencing clinically meaningful worsening in perceived cognitive impairments versus those receiving AAP.

Statistically significant differences in mean change from baseline favouring AAP over ENZ were seen for usual level of fatigue and fatigue interference at months 2 and 3 and for current fatigue and worse level of fatigue at month 3. Differences favouring AAP versus ENZ were seen for the fatigue scale of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire (months 1 and 3). There was a significantly higher risk of clinically meaningful worsening in usual level of fatigue with ENZ versus AAP at month 3.

No significant differences between cohorts were observed for pain (BPI-SF) at any time-point.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests more favourable outcomes with AAP versus ENZ for cognition and fatigue in the first 3 months of treatment initiation for mCRPC. These findings require confirmation from future analyses of data from AQUARiUS from a larger number of patients with a longer follow-up period.

Patient Preferences and Urologist Judgments on Prostate Cancer Therapy in Japan

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the concordance of treatment preferences between patients and physicians in prostate cancer (PCa) in Japan. An internet-based discrete choice experiment was conducted. Patients and physicians were asked to select their preferred treatment from a pair of hypothetical treatments consisting of four attributes: quality of life (QOL), treatment effectiveness, side effects, and accessibility of treatment. The data were analyzed using a conditional logistic regression model to calculate coefficients and the relative importance (RI) of each attribute. A total of 103 PCa patients and 127 physicians responded. The study looked at 37 patients considered as advanced PCa and 66 who were non-advanced PCa. All of the physicians were urologists. Advanced PCa patients ranked the attributes as follows: treatment effectiveness (RI: 32%), accessibility of treatment (RI: 26%), QOL (RI: 23%), and side effects (RI: 19%). For physicians, the RI ranking was the same as for advanced PCa patients; treatment effectiveness (RI: 29%), accessibility of treatment (RI: 27%), QOL (RI: 26%), and side effects (RI: 18%). For non-advanced PCa patients, accessibility of treatment ranked the highest RI (27%) and treatment effectiveness ranked as the lowest RI (14%). Our study suggests that the ranking of the attributes was consistent between advanced PCa patients and physicians. The most influential attribute was treatment effectiveness. Treatment preferences also vary by disease stage.