Patients' and urologists' preferences for prostate cancer treatment: 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.

Preferences and considerations for interval cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: The patient's perspective

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer contains cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and chemotherapy. Achieving successful CRS (≤ 1 cm residual disease) is prognostically important, but may not be feasible peri-operatively while still risking complications. Therefore, patients' treatment expectations are important to discuss. We investigated patient considerations for interval CRS.

METHODS

Patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer planned for interval CRS completed a questionnaire about the impact of chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and becoming care-dependent on decision-making regarding CRS. The questionnaire included a vignette study, in which patients repeatedly chose between two treatment scenarios with varying levels for chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and risk of complications including stoma. Patient preferences were analyzed, including differences between patients aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years.

RESULTS

Among 85 included patients, 31 (37%) patients considered interval CRS worthwhile irrespective of survival benefit and 33 (39%) irrespective of chance of successful surgery. However, 34 patients (41%) considered interval CRS only worthwhile if survival benefit was > 12 months, while 41 (49%) thought so if chance of successful surgery was ≥ 25%. Older patients considered these factors more important. Overall, 27% considered becoming permanently dependent of home care unacceptable. In the vignette study (n = 72) risk of complications and stoma were considered less important than chance of successful CRS and survival benefit.

CONCLUSION

Survival benefit, chance of successful surgery and becoming care-dependent are important factors in patient's decision for interval CRS, while risk of complications and stoma are less important. Our results are useful in shared decision-making for interval CRS in ovarian cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Management after non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer

Since the introduction of population-based screening, increasing numbers of T1 rectal cancers are detected and removed by local endoscopic resection. Patients can be cured with endoscopic resection alone, but there is a possibility of residual tumor cells remaining after the initial resection. These can be located intraluminally at the resection site or extraluminally in the form of (lymph node) metastases. To decrease the risk of residual cells progressing towards more advanced disease, additional treatment is usually needed. However, with the currently available risk stratification models, it remains challenging to determine who should and should not be further treated after non-curative endoscopic resection. In this review, the different management strategies for patients with non-curatively treated T1 rectal cancers are discussed, along with the available evidence for each strategy and relevant considerations for clinical decision making. Furthermore, we provide practical guidance on the management and surveillance following non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer.

Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Medication in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma in China: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the relative importance of attributes and the willingness to pay for pharmacological therapies among patients with renal cell carcinoma in China.

METHODS

Patients with renal cell carcinoma completed a D-efficient-designed, discrete-choice experiment online survey that presented a series of ten trade-off questions and one examining scenario. Based on the literature review and consultations with patients with renal cell carcinoma and clinicians, each question included a pair of hypothetical renal cell carcinoma medication profiles characterized by seven attributes including progression-free survival, objective response rate, medication regimen, fatigue, gastrointestinal reaction, hand-foot syndrome, and monthly out-of-pocket costs. Relative importance and willingness to pay were calculated using coefficients estimated by mixed logit regression in the main analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted considering the heterogeneity of the participants, based on sex, education level, and income level, using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

The analysis incorporated responses from 182 Chinese respondents. Except for the medication regimen, all attributes were statistically significant. Progression-free survival was the most important attribute, followed by objective response rate, monthly out-of-pocket costs, fatigue, gastrointestinal reaction, and hand-foot syndrome. Patients were willing to pay ￥2010.51 ($298.30), ￥494.93 ($73.43) for 1 unit improvement of progression-free survival, and objective response rate, and￥7558.93 ($1121.50), ￥6927.24 ($1027.78) to avoid experiencing fatigue and gastrointestinal reaction, respectively. Differences in preferences and willingness to pay were found according to patients' gender, income, and education level.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, patients with renal cell carcinoma preferred medications with better efficacy (objective response rate and progression-free survival) and lower out-of-pocket costs. Heterogeneity can be found in preferences and willingness to pay based on patients' gender, income, and education levels.

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

PURPOSE

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

Differences between physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is useful to facilitate cancer treatment decisions. However, it is difficult to make treatment decisions when physician and patient preferences are different. This review aimed to summarize and compare the preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus. Studies elicited and compared preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients were included. Information about the study design and preference measuring attributes or questions were extracted. The available relative rank of every attribute in discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies and answers to preference measuring questions in non-DCE studies were summarized followed by a narrative synthesis to reflect the preference differences.

RESULTS

Of 12,959 studies identified, 8290 were included in the title and abstract screening and 48 were included in the full text screening. Included 37 studies measured the preferences from six treatment-related aspects: health benefit, adverse effects, treatment process, cost, impact on quality of life, and provider qualification. The trade-off between health benefit and adverse effects was the main focus of the included studies. DCE studies showed patients gave a higher rank on health benefit and treatment process, while physicians gave a higher rank on adverse effects. Non-DCE studies suggested that patients were willing to take a higher risk of adverse effects or lower health benefit than physicians when accepting a treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians and patients had important preference differences for cancer treatment. More sufficient communication is needed in cancer treatment decision-making.

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.

Development of attributes and levels of mental health insurance services using a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Despite the fact that mental illness is among the ten top diseases with the highest burden, the health services required by these patients do not have adequate insurance coverage. The purpose of this study is to develop the attributes and levels of mental health insurance services using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This study involved a qualitative phase of the DCE that was conducted in Iran in 2020-2021 and included several stages. First, during a literature review, the attributes and levels were determined. Then, the attributes of health insurance were identified and weighed through virtual and in-person interviews with 16 mental health insurance professionals and policymakers in this field who were selected by purposive sampling. Finally, after a few sessions, through review studies, interviews, and a group of the expert panel, attributes and levels were finalized.

RESULTS

This study showed that coverage of inpatient services, outpatient services, place of receiving services, use of online internet services, limitation of services, and monthly premiums were the most important attributes of mental health insurance services.

CONCLUSION

To promote mental health insurance, policymakers and health insurance organizations should pay attention to premiums to be commensurate with the payment of people, packages of mental health services, and the ability of people to pay in appropriation with inflation. Identifying these attributes can determine people's willingness to pay and preferences for mental health insurance and lead to better planning for more comprehensive coverage for patients and increase the desirability of individuals in receiving services.

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.

Surgeon preference for treatment allocation in older people facing major gastrointestinal surgery: an application of the discrete choice experiment methodology

AIM

Variation in major gastrointestinal surgery rates in the older population suggests heterogeneity in surgical management. A higher prevalence of comorbidities, frailty and cognitive impairments in the older population may account for some variation. The aim of this study was to determine surgeon preference for major surgery versus conservative management in hypothetical patient scenarios based on key attributes.

METHOD

A survey was designed according to the discrete choice methodology guided by a separate qualitative study. Questions were designed to test for associations between key attributes (age, comorbidity, urgency of presentation, pathology, functional and cognitive status) and treatment preference for major gastrointestinal surgery versus conservative management. The survey consisting of 18 hypothetical scenarios was disseminated electronically to UK gastrointestinal surgeons. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify associations between the attributes and treatment preference.

RESULTS

In total, 103 responses were received after 256 visits to the questionnaire site (response rate 40.2%). Participants answered 1847 out of the 1854 scenarios (99.6%). There was a preference for major surgery in 1112/1847 (60.2%) of all scenarios. Severe comorbidities (OR 0.001, 95% CI 0.000-0.030; P = 0.000), severe cognitive impairment (OR 0.001, 95% CI 0.000-0.033; P = 0.000) and age 85 years and above (OR 0.028, 95% CI 0.005-0.168; P = 0.000) were all significant in the decision not to offer major gastrointestinal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated variation in surgical treatment preference according to key attributes in hypothetical scenarios. The development of fitness-stratified guidelines may help to reduce variation in surgical practice in the older population.

Impact of centralization of prostate cancer services on the choice of radical treatment

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery and radiotherapy services on the choice of prostate cancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This national population-based study used linked cancer registry data and administrative hospital-level data for all 16 621 patients who were diagnosed between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiation therapy (RT) in the English National Health Service (NHS). Travel times by car to treating centres were estimated using a geographic information system. We used logistic regression to assess the impact of the relative proximity of alternative treatment options on the type of treatment received, with adjustment for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 78 NHS hospitals that provide RT or RP for prostate cancer, 41% provide both, 36% provide RT and 23% provide RP. Compared to patients who had both treatment options available at their nearest centre where overall 57% of patients received RT and 43% RP, patients were less likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RP only and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RT was >15 min (52% of patients received RT and 48% RP%, odds ratio [OR] 0.70 (0.58-0.85); P < 0.001). Conversely, patients were more likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RT and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RP was >15 min (63% of patients received RT and 37% RP, OR 1.23 (1.08-1.40); P < 0.001). There was a negligible impact on the type of treatment received if centres providing alternative treatment options were ≤15-min travel time from each other.

CONCLUSION

The relative proximity of prostate cancer treatment options to a patient's residence is an independent predictor for the type of radical treatment received. Centralization policies for prostate cancer should not focus on one treatment modality but should consider all treatments to avoid a negative impact on treatment choice.

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.

Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Accounting for preference heterogeneity is a growing analytical practice in health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs). As heterogeneity may be examined from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, identifying the breadth of these methodological approaches and understanding the differences are major steps to provide guidance on good research practices.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to systematically summarize current practices that account for preference heterogeneity based on the published DCEs related to healthcare.

METHODS

This systematic review is part of the project led by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) health preference research special interest group. The systematic review conducted systematic searches on the PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science databases, as well as on two recently published reviews, to identify articles. The review included health-related DCE articles published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2020. All the included articles also presented evidence on preference heterogeneity analysis based on either explained or unexplained factors or both.

RESULTS

Overall, 342 of the 2202 (16%) articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for extraction. The trend showed that analyses of preference heterogeneity increased substantially after 2010 and that such analyses mainly examined heterogeneity due to observable or unobservable factors in individual characteristics. Heterogeneity through observable differences (i.e., explained heterogeneity) is identified among 131 (40%) of the 342 articles and included one or more interactions between an attribute variable and an observable characteristic of the respondent. To capture unobserved heterogeneity (i.e., unexplained heterogeneity), the studies largely estimated either a mixed logit (n = 205, 60%) or a latent-class logit (n = 112, 32.7%) model. Few studies (n = 38, 11%) explored scale heterogeneity or heteroskedasticity.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing preference heterogeneity evidence in health-related DCEs has been found as an increasingly used practice among researchers. In recent studies, controlling for unexplained preference heterogeneity has been seen as a common practice rather than explained ones (e.g., interactions), yet a lack of providing methodological details has been observed in many studies that might impact the quality of analysis. As heterogeneity can be assessed from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, researchers should become more technically pronounced to increase confidence in the results and improve the ability of decision makers to act on the preference evidence.

Health preference research: An overview for medical radiation sciences

Understanding preferences of key stakeholders including patients, clinicians and policymakers can inform clinical practice, workforce and policy. It also allows health services to evaluate existing clinical practices, policies and procedures. This commentary aims to introduce medical radiation professionals to health preference research by describing commonly used preference methodologies, with a particular focus on discrete choice experiments. Relevant examples of health preference research will be highlighted to demonstrate the application of health preference research in medical radiation sciences.

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.

Men's preferences for image-guidance in prostate radiation therapy: A discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

There are several options for real-time prostate monitoring during radiation therapy including fiducial markers (FMs) and transperineal ultrasound (TPUS). However, the patient experience for these procedures is very different. This study aimed to determine patient preferences around various aspects of prostate image-guidance, focusing on FMs and TPUS.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted, describing the image-guidance approach by: pain, cost, accuracy, side effects, additional appointments, and additional time. Participants were males with prostate cancer (PCa) and from the general Australian population. A DCE survey required participants to make hypothetical choices in each of 8 choice sets. Multinomial logit modelling and Latent Class Analysis (LCA) were used to analyse the responses. Marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) was calculated.

RESULTS

476 respondents completed the survey (236 PCa patients and 240 general population). The most important attributes for both cohorts were pain, cost and accuracy (p < 0.01). PCa patients were willing to pay more to avoid the worst pain than the general population, and willing to pay more for increased accuracy. LCA revealed 3 groups: 2 were focused more on the process-related attributes of pain and cost, and the third was focused on the clinical efficacy attributes of accuracy and side effects.

CONCLUSION

Both cohorts preferred less cost and pain and improved accuracy, with men with PCa valuing accuracy more than the general population. In addition to the clinical and technical evidence, radiation oncology centres should consider the preferences of patients when considering choice of image-guidance techniques.

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.

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.

Assessing couples' preferences for fresh or frozen embryo transfer: a discrete choice experiment

STUDY QUESTION

What are couples' preferences for fresh embryo transfer versus freezing of all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer and the associated clinical outcomes that may differentiate them?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Couples' preferences are driven by anticipated chances of live birth, miscarriage, neonatal complications, and costs but not by the differences in the treatment process (including delay of embryo transfer linked to frozen embryo transfer and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) associated with fresh embryo transfer).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A policy of freezing all embryos followed by transfer of frozen embryos results in livebirth rates which are similar to or higher than those following the transfer of fresh embryos while reducing the risk of OHSS and small for gestational age babies: it can, however, increase the risk of pre-eclampsia and large for gestational age offspring. Hence, the controversy continues over whether to do fresh embryo transfer or freeze all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) technique to survey infertile couples between August 2018 and January 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We asked IVF naïve couples attending a tertiary referral centre to independently complete a questionnaire with nine hypothetical choice tasks between fresh and frozen embryo transfer. The alternatives varied across the choice occurrences on several attributes including efficacy (live birth rate), safety (miscarriage rate, neonatal complication rate), and cost of treatment. We assumed that a freeze-all strategy prolonged treatment but reduced the risk of OHSS. An error components mixed logit model was used to estimate the relative value (utility) that couples placed on the alternative treatment approaches and the attributes used to describe them. Willingness to pay and marginal rates of substitution between the non-cost attributes were calculated. A total of 360 individual questionnaires were given to 180 couples who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 212 were completed and returned Our study population included 3 same sex couples (2 females and 1 male) and 101 heterosexual couples. Four questionnaires were filled by one partner only. The response rate was 58.8%.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Couples preferred both fresh and frozen embryo transfer (odds ratio 27.93 and 28.06, respectively) compared with no IVF treatment, with no strong preference for fresh over frozen. Couples strongly preferred any IVF technique that offered an increase in live birth rates by 5% (P = 0.006) and 15% (P < 0.0001), reduced miscarriage by 18% (P < 0.0001) and diminished neonatal complications by 10% (P < 0.0001). Respondents were willing to pay an additional £2451 (95% CI 604 - 4299) and £761 (95% CI 5056-9265) for a 5 and 15% increase in the chance of live birth, respectively, regardless of whether this involved fresh or frozen embryos. They required compensation of £5230 (95% CI 3320 - 7141) and £13 245 (95% CI 10 110-16 380) to accept a 10 and 25% increase in the risk of neonatal complications, respectively (P < 0.001). Results indicated that couples would be willing to accept a 1.26% (95% CI 1.001 - 1.706) reduction in the live birth rate for a 1% reduction in the risk of neonatal complications per live birth. Older couples appeared to place less emphasis on the risk of neonatal complications than younger couples.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

DCEs can elicit intentions which may not reflect actual behaviour. The external validity of this study is limited by the fact that it was conducted in a single centre with generous public funding for IVF. We cannot rule out the potential for selection or responder bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

If a strategy of freeze all was to be implemented it would appear to be acceptable to patients, if either success rates can be improved or neonatal complications reduced. Live birth rates, neonatal complication rates, miscarriage rates, and cost are more likely to drive their preferences than a slight delay in the treatment process. The results of this study have important implications for future economic evaluations of IVF, as they suggest that the appropriate balance needs to be struck between success and safety. A holistic approach incorporating patient preferences for expected clinical outcomes and risks should be taken into consideration for individualized care.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was sought for this study. A.M. is the chief investigator of the randomized controlled trial 'Freeze all'. S.B. is an Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Graham Scotland reports non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Perceptions of partial gland ablation for prostate cancer among men on active surveillance: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES –

Partial gland ablation (PGA) therapy is an emerging treatment modality that targets specific areas of biopsy proven prostate cancer (PCa) to minimize treatment-related morbidity by sparing benign prostate. This qualitative study aims to explore and characterize perceptions and attitudes toward PGA in men with very-low-risk, low-risk, and favorable intermediate-risk PCa on active surveillance (AS).

DESIGN –

92 men diagnosed with very-low-risk, low-risk, and favorable intermediate-risk PCa on AS were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews on PGA.

SETTING –

Single tertiary care center located in New York City.

PARTICIPANTS –

20 men with very-low-risk, low-risk, and favorable intermediate-risk PCa on AS participated in the interviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES –

Emerging themes on perceptions and attitudes toward PGA were developed from transcripts inductively coded and analyzed under standardized methodology.

RESULTS –

Four themes were derived from twenty interviews that represent the primary considerations in treatment decision-making: (1) the feeling of psychological safety associated with low-risk disease; (2) preference for minimally invasive treatments; (3) the central role of the physician; (4) and the pursuit of treatment options that align with disease severity. Eleven men (55%) expressed interest in pursuing PGA only if their cancer were to progress, while 9 men (45%) expressed interest at the current moment.

CONCLUSIONS –

Though an emerging treatment modality, patients were broadly accepting of PGA for PCa with men primarily debating the risks versus benefits of proactively treating low-risk disease. Additional research on men's preferences and attitudes toward PGA will further guide counseling and shared decision-making for PGA.

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.

Active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2: An online experimental study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate framing of active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 in women of childbearing age.

METHODS

We conducted a between-subjects factorial (2 × 2) randomised experiment. Women aged 25-40 living in Australia were presented with the same hypothetical pathway of testing human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, high-grade cytology and a diagnosis of CIN2, through an online survey. They were randomised to one of four groups to evaluate the effects of (i) framing (method of explaining resolution of abnormal cells) and (ii) inclusion of an overtreatment statement (included versus not). Primary outcome was management choice following the scenario: active surveillance or surgery.

RESULTS

1638 women were randomised. Overall, preference for active surveillance was high (78.9%; n = 1293/1638). There was no effect of framing or providing overtreatment information, or their interaction, on management choice. After adjusting for intervention received, age, education, and other model covariates, participants were more likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they had not already had children, had plans for children in the future, had no family history of cancer, had no history of endometriosis, had adequate health literacy, and more trust in their GP. Participants were less likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they were more predisposed to seek health care for minor problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we found no framing effect across the four conditions, we found a high level of preference for active surveillance with associations of increased preference that accord with the desire to minimise potential risks of CIN2 treatment on obstetric outcomes. These are valuable data for future clinical trials of active surveillance for management of CIN2 in younger women of childbearing age.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618002043213, 20/12/2018, prior to participant enrolment).

Preferences for Weight Loss Treatment Amongst Treatment-Seeking Patients with Severe Obesity: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for weight loss vary considerably with regard to risks and benefits, but the relative importance of treatment characteristics in patient decision-making is largely unknown, particularly amongst patients with severe obesity. Developing such services requires insight into the preferences of recipients for service attributes.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to quantify, using a discrete choice experiment, the preferences of treatment-seeking patients with severe obesity within the Irish population regarding different attributes of various obesity treatments.

METHODS

Within a cohort of patients with severe obesity attending a hospital-based weight management programme, patients' attitudes to and perceptions of three distinct treatment modalities were compared to those regarding not having treatment. The treatments included a structured lifestyle modification programme, lifestyle modification alongside weight loss medication, and bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

On average, patients with severe and complicated obesity who were attending a weight management programme were more enthusiastic about participating in a programme to help improve their diet and physical activity than they were about having surgery if the methods of treatment had equivalent results and costs.

CONCLUSION

The findings provide insights into preferences that might assist the development of more appropriate treatments for severe obesity.

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.

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

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

Mimicking Real-Life Decision Making in Health: Allowing Respondents Time to Think in a Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

To empirically test the impact of allowing respondents time to think (TTT) about their choice options on the outcomes of a discrete choice experiments (DCE).

METHODS

In total, 613 participants of the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS) completed a DCE questionnaire that measured their preferences for receiving secondary findings of a genetic test. A Bayesian D-efficient design with 60 choice tasks divided over 4 questionnaires was used. Each choice task contained 2 scenarios with 4 attributes: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunities, and effectiveness of prevention. Respondents were randomly allocated to the TTT or no TTT (NTTT) sample. Latent class models (LCMs) were estimated to determine attribute-level values and their relative importance. In addition, choice certainty, attribute-level interpretation, choice consistency, and potential uptake rates were compared between samples.

RESULTS

In the TTT sample, 92% of the respondents (245 of 267) indicated they used the TTT period to (1) read the information they received (72%) and (2) discuss with their family (24%). In both samples, respondents were very certain about their choices. A 3-class LCM was fitted for both samples. Preference reversals were found for 3 of the 4 attributes in one class in the NTTT sample (34% class-membership probability). Relative importance scores of the attributes differed between the 2 samples, and significant scale effects indicating higher choice consistency in TTT sample were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering respondents TTT influences decision making and preferences. Developers of future DCEs regarding complex health-related decisions are advised to consider this approach to enhance the validity of the elicited preferences.

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.

Using discrete choice model to elicit preference for health-care priority setting

BACKGROUND

Regarding lack of resources in the health-care sector, prioritization of these resources is inevitable. The objective of the current study was to elicit public preference in prioritizing and allocating health resources using a discrete choice experiment technique, which is currently the most commonly applied method in this field of researches.

METHODS

In this discrete choice study, five attributes were selected through interview with 25 health experts to elicit people preferences in Tehran (Iran) in 2017. Eighteen choice tasks were arranged within 3 blocks, and this would be achieved with a sample size of 579. Choice data were modeled using generalized estimating equation method and STATA 14 software.

RESULTS

Five attributes including level of emergency, severity of disease, communicable, benefit from treatment, and age are the most important attributes in the prioritizing health resources from the expert's point of view. As well as among these attributes, communicable (odds ratio = 2.81) is the most important attributes from the public's point of view.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study could be very useful for prioritizing resources which is one of the most challenging measurements of the health system. By identifying the importance of each patient's characteristic, patients can be categorized in groups with different priorities, as well as the diagnosis-related group system, based on which resources are allocated.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results From a Survey of Patients and Providers

Background. Value assessments and treatment decision making typically focus on clinical endpoints, especially overall survival (OS). However, OS data are not always available, and surrogate markers may also have some value to patients. This study sought to estimate preferences for progression-free survival (PFS) relative to OS in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) among a diverse set of stakeholders—patients, oncologists, and oncology nurses—and estimate the value patients and providers place on other attributes of treatment. Methods. Utilizing a combined conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiment approach, we conducted an online prospective survey of mBC patients and oncology care providers who treat mBC patients across the United States. Results. A total of 299 mBC patients, 100 oncologists, and 99 oncology nurses completed the survey. Virtually all patients preferred health state sequences with contiguous periods of PFS, compared with approximately 85% and 75% of nurses and oncologists, respectively. On average, longer OS was significantly (P < 0.01) preferred by the majority (75%) patients, but only 15% of nurses preferred longer OS, and OS did not significantly affect oncologists’ preferred health state. However, in the context of a treatment decision, whether a treatment offered continuous periods of stable disease holding OS constant significantly affected nurses’ treatment choices. Patients and providers alike valued reductions in adverse event risk and evidence from high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials. Conclusions. The strong preference for observed PFS suggests more research is warranted to better understand the reasons for PFS having positive value to patients. The results also suggest a range of endpoints in clinical trials may have importance to patients.

Patient-reported outcomes following enzalutamide or placebo in men with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROSPER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the PROSPER trial, enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival in patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report the results of patient-reported outcomes of this study.

METHODS

In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PROSPER trial, done at 254 study sites worldwide, patients aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of up to 10 months were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice web recognition system to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by prostate-specific antigen doubling time and baseline use of a bone-targeting agent. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival, reported elsewhere. Secondary efficacy endpoints, reported here, were pain progression (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-PR25], the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Levels health questionnaire visual analogue scale [EQ-5D-FL, EQ-VAS], and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] questionnaires). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 17, and every 16 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation. We used predefined questionnaire thresholds to identify clinically meaningful changes. Enrolment for PROSPER is complete and follow-up continues. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02003924.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 26, 2013, and June 28, 2017, 1401 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (n=933) or placebo (n=468). Median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 10·7-29·2) in the enzalutamide group and 15·1 months (7·4-25·9) in the placebo group. Patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were similar between groups. Changes in least squares mean from baseline to week 97 favoured enzalutamide versus placebo for FACT-P social and family wellbeing (0·30 [95% CI -0·25 to 0·85] vs -0·64 [-1·51 to 0·24]; difference 0·94 [95% CI 0·02 to 1·85]; p=0·045) and disfavoured enzalutamide versus placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms (1·55 [0·26 to 2·83) vs -1·83 [-3·86 to 0·20]; difference 3·38 [1·24 to 5·51]; p=0·0020); neither of these changes were clinically meaningful. No significant differences were observed between treatments for changes from baseline to week 97 in any other patient-reported outcome score. Time to clinically meaningful pain progression as assessed by BPI-SF pain severity was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 36·83 months, [95% CI 34·69 to not reached [NR] vs NR; hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·97]; p=0·028); there was no significant difference for BPI-SF item 3 or pain interference. Time to clinically meaningful symptom worsening was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms (median 36·86 months [95% CI 33·35 to NR] vs 25·86 [18·53 to 29·47]; HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46 to 0·72]; p<0·0001) and bowel symptoms (33·15 [29·50 to NR] vs 25·89 [18·43 to 29·67]; 0·72 [0·59 to 0·89]; p=0·0018), and clinically meaningful health-related quality of life as assessed by FACT-P total score (22·11 [18·63 to 25·86] vs 18·43 [14·85-19·35]; 0·83 [0·69 to 0·99]; p=0·037), emotional wellbeing (36·73 [33·12 to 38·21] vs 29·47 [22·18 to 33·15]; 0·69 [0·55 to 0·86]; p=0·0008), and prostate cancer subscale (18·43 [14·85 to 18·66] vs 14·69 [11·07 to 16·20]; 0·79 [0·67 to 0·93]; p=0·0042), although there was no significant difference for other FACT-P scores. Time to clinically meaningful deterioration in EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms was shorter with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 33·15 months [95% CI 29·60 to NR] vs 36·83 [29·47 to NR]; HR 1·29 [95% CI 1·02 to 1·63]; p=0·035). Time to deterioration of EQ-VAS was significantly longer for enzalutamide than for placebo (median 22·11 months [95% CI 18·46 to 25·66] vs 14·75 [11·07 to 18·17]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·63 to 0·90]; p=0·0013).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving enzalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival than did those who received placebo, while maintaining low pain levels and prostate cancer symptom burden and high health-related quality of life. Enzalutamide showed a clinical benefit by delaying pain progression, symptom worsening, and decrease in functional status, compared with placebo. These findings suggest that enzalutamide is a treatment option that should be discussed with patients presenting with high-risk, non- metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.

FUNDING

Astellas Pharma Inc, Medivation LLC (a Pfizer Company).

Development and usability testing of a multi-criteria value clarification methods for patients with localized prostate cancer

Current guidelines for the development of decision aids recommend that they have to include a process for helping patients clarify their personal values, for example, by using values clarification methods. In this article, we extensively described the development process of the web-based values clarification method for patients with localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer based on the analytic hierarchy process. With analytic hierarchy process, the relative importance of different attributes of available treatments can be determined through series of pairwise comparisons of potential outcomes. Furthermore, analytic hierarchy process is able to use this information to present respondents with a quantitative overall treatment score and can therefore give actual treatment advice upon patients’ request. The addition of this values clarification method to an existing web-based treatment decision aid for patients with localized prostate cancer is thought to improve the support offered to patients in their decision-making process and their decision quality.

Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Scale heterogeneity, or differences in the error variance of choices, may account for a significant amount of the observed variation in the results of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) when comparing preferences between different groups of respondents.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify if, and how, scale heterogeneity has been addressed in healthcare DCEs that compare the preferences of different groups.

METHODS

A systematic review identified all healthcare DCEs published between 1990 and February 2016. The full-text of each DCE was then screened to identify studies that compared preferences using data generated from multiple groups. Data were extracted and tabulated on year of publication, samples compared, tests for scale heterogeneity, and analytical methods to account for scale heterogeneity. Narrative analysis was used to describe if, and how, scale heterogeneity was accounted for when preferences were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 626 healthcare DCEs were identified. Of these 199 (32%) aimed to compare the preferences of different groups specified at the design stage, while 79 (13%) compared the preferences of groups identified at the analysis stage. Of the 278 included papers, 49 (18%) discussed potential scale issues, 18 (7%) used a formal method of analysis to account for scale between groups, and 2 (1%) accounted for scale differences between preference groups at the analysis stage. Scale heterogeneity was present in 65% (n = 13) of studies that tested for it. Analytical methods to test for scale heterogeneity included coefficient plots (n = 5, 2%), heteroscedastic conditional logit models (n = 6, 2%), Swait and Louviere tests (n = 4, 1%), generalised multinomial logit models (n = 5, 2%), and scale-adjusted latent class analysis (n = 2, 1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Scale heterogeneity is a prevalent issue in healthcare DCEs. Despite this, few published DCEs have discussed such issues, and fewer still have used formal methods to identify and account for the impact of scale heterogeneity. The use of formal methods to test for scale heterogeneity should be used, otherwise the results of DCEs potentially risk producing biased and potentially misleading conclusions regarding preferences for aspects of healthcare.

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.

Societal preferences for fertility treatment in Australia: a stated preference discrete choice experiment

Objective: To investigate preferences for fertility treatment from the Australian general population with the aims of calculating the willingness to pay in tax contribution for attributes (characteristics) that make up treatment and for an "ideal" fertility treatment program. We also assessed whether willingness-to-pay varies by the relationship status or sexual orientation of the patient.Methods: A stated preference discrete choice experiment was administered to a panel of 801 individuals representative of the Australian general population. Seven attributes of fertility treatment under three broad categories were included: outcome, process, and cost. Attributes were identified through published literature, focus group discussions, expert knowledge, and a pilot study. A Bayesian fractional experimental design was used, and data analysis was performed using a generalized multinomial logit model. Further analyses included interaction terms and latent class modeling.Results: Six of the seven attributes influenced the choice of a treatment program. Under process attributes, individuals preferred: continuity of care of clinic staff, where patients are seen by the same doctor but different nurses at each visit; "alternative" treatments being offered to all patients; and onsite clinic counseling and peer-support groups. Personalization and tailoring of the treatment journey were not important. Among outcome attributes, the improved success rate of having a baby per cycle and significant side-effects were considered important. Cost of treatment also influenced the choice of treatment program. Individual preferences for fertility treatment were not associated with patients' relationship status or sexual orientation. Latent class modeling revealed sub-groups with distinct fertility treatment preferences.Conclusion: This study provides important insights into the attributes that influence the preferences of fertility treatment in Australia. It also estimates socially-inclusive willingness-to-pay values in tax contributions for an "ideal" package of treatment. The results can inform economic evaluations of fertility treatment programs.

Attitude towards active surveillance: a cross-sectional survey among patients with uroandrological disorders

OBJECTIVES

We looked at subjective attitude towards active surveillance (AS) as the first option for cancer management in a cohort of patients seeking first medical help for uroandrological disorders prior to a formal discussion with a caregiver.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

Uroandrological outpatient clinic of a European academic centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Data of 1059 patients at their first access for uroandrological purposes from January 2014 to December 2016 were analysed.

INTERVENTION

Patients were invited to complete a survey with closed questions investigating their attitude towards AS, prior to any clinical evaluation. Likewise, patients were invited to score the importance given to different aspects of personal life in the case of a cancer diagnosis, using a 10-point Likert scale.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES

The reported opinion towards AS management for cancer was assessed. Logistic regression analyses tested participants' sociodemographic characteristics associated with a positive opinion on AS.

RESULTS

Positive, negative and doubtful attitudes towards AS were observed in 347 (33%), 331 (31%) and 381 (36%) patients, respectively. Female patients were more likely to report a negative attitude towards AS (38.7% vs 29.6%, p=0.04) while patients with previous parenthood more frequently reported a positive opinion on AS (37.2% vs 29.9%, p=0.005). Patient age emerged as the only predictor of a positive attitude towards AS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.04, p<0.001), with a 46% and 33% probability of being pro-AS for a patient aged 65 and 45 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One out of three patients would express positive feedbacks on AS in the unfortunate case of tumour diagnosis, only according to his/her baseline personal opinion and prior to any discussion with a cancer caregiver. The older the patient, the higher the probability of being compliant with a conservative management for cancer.

Patients' preferences for treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer

Background

After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery for oesophageal cancer, 29 per cent of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. Active surveillance after nCRT (instead of standard oesophagectomy) may improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but patients need to undergo frequent diagnostic tests and it is unknown whether survival is worse than that after standard oesophagectomy. Factors that influence patients' preferences, and trade-offs that patients are willing to make in their choice between surgery and active surveillance were investigated here.

Methods

A prospective discrete-choice experiment was conducted. Patients with oesophageal cancer completed questionnaires 4–6 weeks after nCRT, before surgery. Patients' preferences were quantified using scenarios based on five aspects: 5-year overall survival, short-term HRQoL, long-term HRQoL, the risk that oesophagectomy is still necessary, and the frequency of clinical examinations using endoscopy and PET–CT. Panel latent class analysis was used.

Results

Some 100 of 104 patients (96·2 per cent) responded. All aspects, except the frequency of clinical examinations, influenced patients' preferences. Five-year overall survival, the chance that oesophagectomy is still necessary and long-term HRQoL were the most important attributes. On average, based on calculation of the indifference point between standard surgery and active surveillance, patients were willing to trade off 16 per cent 5-year overall survival to reduce the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary from 100 per cent (standard surgery) to 35 per cent (active surveillance).

Conclusion

Patients are willing to trade off substantial 5-year survival to achieve a reduction in the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary.

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer

Background

Over the last decade, active surveillance has proven to be a safe approach for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Although active surveillance presents several advantages for both patients and the health care system, all eligible patients do not adopt this approach. Our goal was to evaluate the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach.

Methods

Focus groups (n = 5) were held with physicians who provided care for men with low-risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of health care professionals (HCPs) was captured to understand their decisions in proposing active surveillance and to reveal the barriers and facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. A content analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions.

Results

Although physicians agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low-risk prostate cancer patients, they were concerned about the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They pointed out the need for additional tools to appropriately identify proper patients for whom active surveillance is the best option. Urologists and radiation-oncologists were keen to collaborate with each other, but the role of general practitioner remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist.

Conclusions

Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers in addition to more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would increase the confidence of both patients and physicians in the choice of active surveillance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3273-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment on basic health insurance in Iran

Background: Nonmarket stated preferences valuation, especially discrete choice experiments (DCEs), is one of the commonly used techniques in the health sector. The primary purpose of this approach is to help select attributes and attributes-levels that are able to properly describe health care products or services. This study aimed at developing attributes and attributes-levels for basic health insurance system in Iran.

Methods: This study was conducted in 3 phases. First, narrative review was performed to identify related attributes. Also, 9 experts were interviewed to identify relevant attributes of health insurance in context. Other 36 experts rated the attributes and levels. Then, the research team decided on the inclusion of attributes and levels in the final design. The design was constructed using generic and Defficient method with SAS 9.1. The design was divided into 3 blocks, each having 8 choice sets. Finally, the choice set was piloted with 45 participants.

Results: Public hospitals, and private hospitals benefits, dental insurance coverage, inpatient benefits, rehabilitation therapy, and paraclinical benefits, long-term care, medical devices benefits (Ortez, Protez, etc.), and monthly premium were identified and included in the final attribute design (D-efficiency = 98.16). The pilot study revealed that participants could easily understand and answer all the choice sets.

Conclusion: The results of our study indicated that health insurance service benefit packages and premium were among the most important attributes that need to be included in the final attribute design for Iranians. The policymakers and health insurance organizations should emphasize these attributes in the benefit packages to make improvements. The emphasis on these attributes can help elicit people’s preferences and willingness to pay for attributes.

Assessment of the societal and individual preferences for fertility treatment in Australia: study protocol for stated preference discrete choice experiments

INTRODUCTION

In Australia, societal and individual preferences for funding fertility treatment remain largely unknown. This has resulted in a lack of evidence about willingness to pay (WTP) for fertility treatment by either the general population (the funders) or infertile individuals (who directly benefit). Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach has been suggested as a more appropriate method to inform economic evaluations of fertility treatment. We outline the protocol for an ongoing study which aims to assess fertility treatment preferences of both the general population and infertile individuals, and indirectly estimate their WTP for fertility treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two separate but related SPDCEs will be conducted for two population samples-the general population and infertile individuals-to elicit preferences for fertility treatment to indirectly estimate WTP. We describe the qualitative work to be undertaken to design the SPDCEs. We will use D-efficient fractional experimental designs informed by prior coefficients from the pilot surveys. The mode of administration for the SPDCE is also discussed. The final results will be analysed using mixed logit or latent class model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is being funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant AP1104543 and has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC 17255) and a fertility clinic's ethics committee. Findings of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at various conferences. A lay summary of the results will be made publicly available on the University of New South Wales National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit website. Our results will contribute to the development of an evidence-based policy framework for the provision of cost-effective and patient-centred fertility treatment in Australia.

Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) represents a fundamental shift in managing select cancer patients that initiates treatment only upon disease progression to avoid overtreatment. Given uncertain outcomes, patient engagement could support decision-making about AS. Little is known about how to optimize patient engagement for AS decision-making. This scoping review aimed to characterize research on patient and provider communication about AS, and associated determinants and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to October 2016. English language studies that evaluated cancer patient or provider AS views, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

Results

A total of 2,078 studies were identified, 1,587 were unique, and 1,243 were excluded based on titles/abstracts. Among 344 full-text articles, 73 studies were eligible: 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 6 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 61 prostate cancer. The most influential determinant of initiating AS was physician recommendation. Others included higher socioeconomic status, smaller tumor size, comorbid disease, older age, and preference to avoid adverse treatment effects. AS patients desired more information about AS and reassurance about future treatment options, involvement in decision-making and assessment of illness uncertainty and supportive care needs during follow-up. Only three studies of prostate cancer evaluated interventions to improve AS communication or experience.

Conclusions

This study revealed a paucity of research on AS communication for DCIS, RCC and CLL, but generated insight on how to optimize AS discussions in the context of routine care or clinical trials from research on AS for prostate cancer. Further research is needed on AS for patients with DCIS, RCC and CLL, and to evaluate interventions aimed at patients and/or providers to improve AS communication, experience and associated outcomes.

Informational needs during active surveillance for prostate cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers.

METHODS

We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses.

RESULTS

We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS.

Canadian Men's perspectives about active surveillance in prostate cancer: need for guidance and resources

Background

In prostate cancer, men diagnosed with low risk disease may be monitored through an active surveillance. This research explored the perspectives of men with prostate cancer regarding their decision-making process for active surveillance to identify factors that influence their decision and assist health professionals in having conversations about this option.

Methods

Focus group interviews (n = 7) were held in several Canadian cities with men (N = 52) diagnosed with prostate cancer and eligible for active surveillance. The men’s viewpoints were captured regarding their understanding of active surveillance, the factors that influenced their decision, and their experience with the approach. A content and theme analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions.

Results

Patients described their concerns of living with their disease without intervention, but were reassured by the close monitoring under AS while avoiding harmful side effects associated with treatments. Conversations with their doctor and how AS was described were cited as key influences in their decision, in addition to availability of information on treatment options, distrust in the health system, personality, experiences and opinions of others, and personal perspectives on quality of life.

Conclusions

Men require a thorough explanation on AS as a safe and valid option, as well as guidance towards supportive resources in their decision-making.

Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

INTRODUCTION

As several studies have been conducted to elicit patients' preferences for cancer treatment, it is important to provide an overview and synthesis of these studies. This study aimed to systematically review discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about patients' preferences for cancer treatment and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all DCEs investigating patients' preferences for cancer treatment between January 2010 and April 2016. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and a reporting quality assessment was applied to all studies. Attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes, and their relative importance was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 28 DCEs were identified. More than half of the studies (56%) received an aggregate score lower than 4 on the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) 5-point scale. Most attributes were related to outcome (70%), followed by process (25%) and cost (5%). Outcome attributes were most often significant (81%), followed by process (73%) and cost (67%). The relative importance of outcome attributes was ranked highest in 82% of the cases where it was included, followed by cost (43%) and process (12%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that attributes related to cancer treatment outcomes are the most important for patients. Process and cost attributes were less often included in studies but were still (but less) important to patients in most studies. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware that attribute importance might be influenced by level selection for that attribute.

Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

OBJECTIVES

To review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.

METHODS

A systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

When Primary Care Providers (PCPs) Help Patients Choose Prostate Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The role of primary care providers (PCPs) in decision making around cancer care remains largely unknown. We evaluated how frequently men with localized prostate cancer report receiving help from their PCP about their treatment, and whether those men who do are less likely to receive definitive treatment.

METHODS

We mailed surveys to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014 in the greater Philadelphia region. Participants were asked whether their PCP helped decide how to treat their cancer. The outcome was receipt of definitive treatment (either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy).

RESULTS

A total of 2386 men responded (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). Among these men, 38.2% reported receiving help from their PCP regarding choosing a treatment, and 79.6% received definitive treatment. In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic black men (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.27) were more likely than non-Hispanic white men to report receiving help from their PCP. However, men who did receive help were not more likely to forgo definitive treatment overall (P = .58) or in the subgroups of men who may be least likely to benefit from definitive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Though a substantial proportion of men reported receiving help from their PCP about prostate cancer treatment, these discussions were not associated with different treatment patterns. Further effort is needed to determine how to optimize the role of PCPs in supporting patients to make preference-sensitive cancer decisions.