Patients' preferences and trade-offs for the treatment of early stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Scoping review of values elicitation tools for treatment decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Treatment choices in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involve consideration of tradeoffs between the benefits, toxicities, inconvenience, and costs. Stated preference elicitation methods have been used in the medical field to help evaluate complex treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to assess the evidence base for the use of preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment decision-making from both the patient and provider perspective.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review to identify abstracts or manuscripts focused on the role preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment options among patients, caregivers, and/or providers. Two researchers independently screened full-text references and resolved conflicts through discussion. We summarized key findings, including the type and setting of preference-elicitation tools used for HCC treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Ten published abstracts or manuscripts evaluated the role of preference elicitation tools for HCC treatments. The studies revealed several attributes that are considered by patients and providers making HCC treatment decisions. Many of the studies reviewed suggested that while patients place the most value on extending their overall survival, they are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid risks of treatments and maintain quality of life. Studies of physicians and surgeons found that provider preferences are dependent on patient characteristics, provider specialty, and surgeon or hospital-related factors.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review explored both patient and physician preferences towards treatment modalities in all stages of HCC. The studies revealed a large scope of potential attributes that may be important to patients and that many patients are willing to forgo survival to maintain quality of life. Further research should explore both preference elicitation of currently available and emerging therapies for HCC as well as the use of this data to develop patient-facing tools to assist in navigating treatment options.

Ablative and non-surgical therapies for early and very early hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

A wide range of ablative and non-surgical therapies are available for treating small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with very early or early-stage disease and preserved liver function.

Objective

To review and compare the effectiveness of all current ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 3 cm).

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Nine databases (March 2021), two trial registries (April 2021) and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.

Review methods

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of ablative and non-surgical therapies, versus any comparator, for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Randomised controlled trials were quality assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and mapped. The comparative effectiveness of therapies was assessed using network meta-analysis. A threshold analysis was used to identify which comparisons were sensitive to potential changes in the evidence. Where comparisons based on randomised controlled trial evidence were not robust or no randomised controlled trials were identified, a targeted systematic review of non-randomised, prospective comparative studies provided additional data for repeat network meta-analysis and threshold analysis. The feasibility of undertaking economic modelling was explored. A workshop with patients and clinicians was held to discuss the findings and identify key priorities for future research.

Results

Thirty-seven randomised controlled trials (with over 3700 relevant patients) were included in the review. The majority were conducted in China or Japan and most had a high risk of bias or some risk of bias concerns. The results of the network meta-analysis were uncertain for most comparisons. There was evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection is inferior to radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% credible interval 1.16 to 1.82), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% credible interval 1.11 to 1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk 1.19, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 1.39) and local recurrence (relative risk 1.80, 95% credible interval 1.19 to 2.71). Percutaneous acid injection was also inferior to radiofrequency ablation for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% credible interval 1.05 to 2.51). Threshold analysis showed that further evidence could plausibly change the result for some comparisons. Fourteen eligible non-randomised studies were identified (n ≥ 2316); twelve had a high risk of bias so were not included in updated network meta-analyses. Additional non-randomised data, made available by a clinical advisor, were also included (n = 303). There remained a high level of uncertainty in treatment rankings after the network meta-analyses were updated. However, the updated analyses suggested that microwave ablation and resection are superior to percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection for some outcomes. Further research on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was recommended at the workshop, although it is only appropriate for certain patient subgroups, limiting opportunities for adequately powered trials.

Limitations

Many studies were small and of poor quality. No comparative studies were found for some therapies.

Conclusions

The existing evidence base has limitations; the uptake of specific ablative therapies in the United Kingdom appears to be based more on technological advancements and ease of use than strong evidence of clinical effectiveness. However, there is evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection are inferior to radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation and resection.

Study registration

PROSPERO CRD42020221357.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131224) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Risk thresholds for patients to switch between daily tablets and biweekly infusions in second-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a patient preference study

BACKGROUND

Historically, high hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-related mortality has been, in part, due to lack of effective therapies; however, several systemic therapies have been recently approved for HCC treatment, including regorafenib and ramucirumab. These two treatments utilize different routes of administration (four daily tablets and biweekly intravenous infusions, respectively) and have different risks of adverse events (AEs). However, we lack data on patient preferences in balancing the route of administration and risk of AEs in patients with HCC. We aimed to determine patient preferences and trade-offs for second-line treatment in patients with HCC.  METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic HCC were recruited through their physicians for this study. Patient preferences were assessed by using a modified threshold technique (TT) design in which respondents were asked two direct-elicitation questions before (assuming same safety and efficacy and only varying mode of administration) and after (incorporating the safety profiles of ramucirumab and regorafenib) the TT series on seven risks of clinically relevant AEs.

RESULTS

In total, of the 157 patients recruited by their physicians, 150 were eligible and consented to participate. In the first elicitation question (assuming risk and efficacy were equivalent), 61.3% of patients preferred daily tablets. However, 76.7% of patients preferred the biweekly infusion when the safety profiles of the two available second-line therapies were included. The TT analysis confirmed that preferences for oral administration were not strong enough to balance out the risk of AEs that differentiate the two therapies.

DISCUSSION

We found that when patients were asked to choose between a daily, oral medication and a biweekly IV medication for HCC, they were more likely to choose a daily, oral medication if efficacy and safety profiles were the same. However, when risks of AEs representing the safety profiles of two currently available second-line treatments were introduced in a second direct-elicitation question, respondents often selected an IV administration with a safety profile similar to ramucirumab, rather than oral tablets with a safety profile similar to regorafenib. Our findings indicate that the risk profile of a second-line treatment for HCC may be more important than the mode of administration to patients.

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 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.

Role of modern radiotherapy in managing patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Several treatment options are available for managing HCC patients, classified roughly as local, local-regional, and systemic therapies. The high post-monotherapy recurrence rate of HCC urges the need for the use of combined modalities to increase tumor control and patient survival. Different international guidelines offer treatment recommendations based on different points of view and classification systems. Radiotherapy (RT) is a well-known local-regional treatment modality for managing many types of cancers, including HCC. However, only some of these treatment guidelines include RT, and the role of combined modalities is rarely mentioned. Hence, the present study reviewed clinical evidence for the use of different combined modalities in managing HCC, focusing on modern RT's role. Modern RT has an increased utility in managing HCC patients, mainly due to two driving forces. First, technological advancement (e.g., stereotactic body radiotherapy and advanced proton-beam therapy) enables precise delivery of radiation to increase tumor control and reduce side effects in the surrounding normal tissue. Second, the boom in developing target therapies and checkpoint-blockade immunotherapy prolongs overall survival in HCC patients, re-emphasizing the importance of local tumor control. Remarkably, RT combines with systemic therapies to generate the systemic therapy augmented by radiotherapy effect, a benefit now being actively investigated.

Combination of CpG Oligodeoxynucleotide and Anti-4-1BB Antibody in the Treatment of Multiple Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Mice

Background

To investigate the effect of topical application of CpG oligodeoxynucleotide (CpG-ODN) combined with anti-4-1BB antibodies on mouse HCC multiple tumor-bearing models and the degree of improvement of anti-tumor immune response in mice.

Materials and Methods

We inoculated each BALB/c male mouse subcutaneously with one tumor in the axillae of the four limbs and divided them into four groups. We only selected the tumor-bearing part of the left lower limb for drug treatment. We measured the tumor-bearing volume of mice in each group. Then, we tested the organ coefficients of mice, the concentrations of IL-12 and IFN-γ in peripheral blood, the ratio of spleen Tregs and CD8⁺T cells, the spleen CTL killing activity, and the survival time of mice.

Results

We found that the tumor-bearing volume decreased significantly after the combination of CpG-ODN and anti-4-1BB antibody (P<0.001). The organ coefficients of treated mice were not significantly different from normal mice (P>0.05). The concentration of IL-12 and IFN-in serum and the ratio of CD8⁺T cells in spleen were increased, while the ratio of spleen Tregs was decreased. CTL activity of spleen was increased. The survival time of mice was significantly prolonged (P<0.001).

Conclusion

The treatment programme combining CpG-ODN with an anti-4-1BB antibody can significantly reduce tumor growth at the treatment site, slow the growth rate of metastases and improve host prognosis.

Patients' treatment preferences for potentially resectable tumors of the head of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of this study was to assess if patients with potentially resectable ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) of the head of the pancreas would choose a Whipple procedure versus palliative chemotherapy.

METHODS

A cohort of adults with radiological resectable PDAC was enrolled at a tertiary Canadian teaching hospital. Participants were informed about treatment options, expected outcomes, and adverse events using data from the most recent scientific literature. Probability trade-off (PTO) was used to elicit treatment preferences.

RESULTS

Surgery was preferred by all participants except one (96.7% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.0001). For 90% of participants preferring surgery, the main reason was the hope of being cured (P = 0.001). If the risk of perioperative mortality was higher than 57%, the risk of perioperative morbidity higher than 85% and the survival benefit was less than 4 months, half of the participants preferred palliative chemotherapy. The likelihood of needing blood transfusions, the length of hospital stay, and long-term consequences such as diabetes or pancreatic exocrine insufficiency were negligible concerns to participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed patients with early-stage PDAC prefer resection over palliative chemotherapy. The dominating factor influencing their decision is the hope of a cure that overshadow the risks of complications, mortality and recurrent disease.

Using the Threshold Technique to Elicit Patient Preferences: An Introduction to the Method and an Overview of Existing Empirical Applications

Patient preference information (PPI) is a topic of interest to regulators and industry. One of many known methods for eliciting PPI is the threshold technique (TT). However, empirical studies of the TT differ from each other in many ways and no effort to date has been made to summarize them or the evidence regarding the performance of the method. We sought to describe the TT and summarize the empirical applications of the method. Forty-three studies were reviewed. Most studies estimated the minimum level of benefit required to make a treatment worthwhile, and over half estimated the maximum level of risk patients would accept to achieve a treatment benefit. The evidence demonstrates that the TT can be used to elicit multiple types of thresholds and can be used to explore preference heterogeneity and preference non-linearity. Some evidence suggests that the method may be sensitive to anchoring and shift-framing effects; however, no evidence suggests that the method is more or less sensitive to these potential biases than other stated-preference methods. The TT may be a viable method for eliciting PPI to support regulatory decision-making; however, additional understanding of the performance of this method may be needed. Future research should focus on TT performance compared with other stated-preference methods, the extent to which results predict patient choice, and the ability of the TT to inform individual treatment decisions at the point of healthcare delivery.

Japanese patient preferences regarding intermediate to advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatments

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate Japanese patient preferences regarding features of intermediate or advanced (Progressed) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and oral anti-cancer therapy. Methods: Patients with HCC, recruited from clinical sites and a patient panel in Japan, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Preferences were quantified using best-worst scaling, where patients identified the best and worst among 13 treatment features. Direct elicitation was used to identify preference for TACE, HAIC, or oral therapy, including the likelihood of trying each. Additional items asked for the willingness to try an oral medication that delays progression by six months but has an 8% or 21% risk of severe hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). Results: The sample (N=119; 29 early stage; 90 Progressed) most preferred "oral medication", "artery branches plugged", and "prevents formation of new blood vessels", and least preferred "risk of liver damage" and "risk of catheter-related complications". Overall, 51%, 40%, and 8% preferred oral therapy, TACE, and HAIC, respectively (p<0.05), and the mean likelihood of trying each were 59%, 52%, and 35%, respectively (p<0.001). Patients with sorafenib or TACE experience most preferred what they had received; however, both groups were equally willing to try the other treatment. Patients preferring oral therapy favored "oral medication" over "artery branches plugged", "surgery is repeated as required when the cancer grows again", and "risk of liver damage", compared to those preferring TACE (p<0.05). Sixty-eight percent would probably try therapy with an 8% risk of severe HFSR, compared to 50% with a 21% risk. Conclusion: Treatment type, mode of action, and risks may drive HCC patient preferences. Such features likely should be incorporated into physician-patient interactions regarding treatment decision-making.