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

Using Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Survival Equivalents (QASE) for the Quantification of Non-health Benefits

Interest in using patient preference (PP) data alongside traditional economic models in health technology assessment (HTA) is growing, including using PP data to quantify non-health benefits. However, this is limited by a lack of standardised methods. In this article, we describe a method for using discrete choice experiment (DCE) data to estimate the value of non-health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted survival equivalence (QASE), which is consistent with the concept of value prevalent among HTA agencies. We describe how PP data can be used to estimate QASE, assess the ability to test the face-validity of QASE estimates of changes in mode of administration calculated from five published DCE oncology studies and review the methodological and normative considerations associated with using QASE to support HTA. We conclude that QASE may have some methodological advantages over alternative methods, but this requires DCEs to estimate second-order effects between length and quality of life. In addition, empirical work has yet to be undertaken to substantiate this advantage and demonstrate the validity of QASE. Further work is also required to align QASE with normative objectives of HTA agencies. Estimating QASE would also have implications for the conduct of DCEs, including standardising and defining more clear attribute definitions.

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.

Preferences of German and Swiss melanoma patients for toxicities versus melanoma recurrence during adjuvant treatment (GERMELATOX-A-trial)

PURPOSE

Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors like PD1-antibodies (ICI) ± CTLA4-antibodies (cICI) or targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (TT) in high-risk melanoma patients demonstrate a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS). Due to specific side effects, the choice of treatment is very often driven by the risk for toxicity. This study addressed for the first time in a multicenter setting the attitudes and preferences of melanoma patients for adjuvant treatment with (c)ICI and TT.

METHODS

In this study ("GERMELATOX-A"), 136 low-risk melanoma patients from 11 skin cancer centers were asked to rate side effect scenarios typical for each (c)ICI and TT with mild-to-moderate or severe toxicity and melanoma recurrence leading to cancer death. We asked patients about the reduction in melanoma relapse and the survival increase at 5 years they would require to tolerate defined side-effects.

RESULTS

By VAS, patients on average valued melanoma relapse worse than all scenarios of side-effects during treatment with (c)ICI or TT. In case of severe side effects, patients required a 15% higher rate of DFS at 5 years for (c)ICI (80%) compared to TT (65%). For survival, patients required an increase of 5-10% for melanoma survival during (c)ICI (85%/80%) compared to TT (75%).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated a pronounced variation of patient preferences for toxicity and outcomes and a clear preference for TT. As adjuvant melanoma treatment with (c)ICI and TT will be increasingly implemented in earlier stages, precise knowledge of the patient perspective can be helpful for decision making.

Preferences for Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Adults with Resected Stage III Melanoma-A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to quantify adult preferences for adjuvant immunotherapy for resected melanoma and the influence of varying levels of key attributes and baseline characteristics.

METHODS

A D-efficient design generated 12 choice tasks for two alternative treatments, adjuvant immunotherapy or no adjuvant immunotherapy. Recruitment to the online discrete choice experiment (DCE) occurred via survey dissemination by eight Australian melanoma consumer and professional groups, targeting adults with resected stage III melanoma, considering or having received adjuvant immunotherapy. The DCE included six attributes with two to three levels each, including 3-year risk of recurrence, mild, permanent and fatal adverse events (AEs), drug regimen and annual out-of-pocket costs. A mixed multinomial logit model was used to estimate preferences and calculate marginal rates of substitution and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP).

RESULTS

The DCE was completed by 116 respondents, who chose adjuvant immunotherapy over no adjuvant immunotherapy in 70% of choice tasks. Respondents preferred adjuvant immunotherapy when associated with reduced: probabilities of recurrence, permanent and fatal AEs, and out-of-pocket costs. mWTP for an absolute reduction of 1% in 3-year risk of recurrence was less for respondents with lower rather than higher incomes, AU$794 (US$527) and AU$2190 (US$1454) per year. Respondents accepted an additional 4% chance of a permanent AE to reduce their absolute risk of 3-year recurrence by 1%. Respondents were willing to accept an extra 2% chance of 3-year recurrence to lower their chance of a fatal AE by 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost three-quarters of respondents chose adjuvant immunotherapy over no adjuvant immunotherapy, preferring treatment that improved efficacy and safety. Findings may inform decisions about access to adjuvant immunotherapy following surgery for melanoma.

Learning Needs of Patients with Cancer and a Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease Who Are Candidates to Receive Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disorders and cancer considering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) need to receive balanced information about the benefits and risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flare-ups of their autoimmune disease. To assess the learning needs of patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune disease regarding ICI treatment, we interviewed 29 patients with autoimmune disease and cancer from a comprehensive cancer center, of whom 20 had received ICI and 9 were candidates to receive ICI at a US Cancer Center. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2021 and January 2022. Interviewee's opinions and preferences about content and information delivery methods were collected. We recorded and transcribed interviews and analyzed them using thematic analysis. Half of the participants were female, and their median (SD) age was 62.9 (±10.9) years. The identified health information needs included the following: (1) information on irAEs and autoimmune disease flare-ups; (2) benefits of ICI; (3) ICI mechanism in the context of autoimmune disease; (4) management of flare-ups; (5) reasons for stopping or modifying cancer or autoimmune disease treatment; (6) likelihood of autoimmune disease progression or organ damage; and (7) lifestyle changes that could help avoid irAEs. Patients who had received ICI and those who had not yet received treatment reported similar needs, although patients who had received ICI had more questions about cancer treatment modifications. Patients also expressed the need to better understand when to contact their provider and how to share information with multiple providers. Most patients wanted to receive information in visual formats for review at home and at their own pace. Patients expressed interest in having educational tools to facilitate shared decision-making with their physicians, and they identified several areas of health information concerning therapy with ICI. They also highlighted the importance of communication among their various providers.

Physician Views on the Provision of Information on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy to Patients with Cancer and Pre-Existing Autoimmune Disease: A Qualitative Study

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved cancer outcomes but can cause severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flares of autoimmune conditions in cancer patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. The objective of this study was to identify the information physicians perceived as most useful for these patients when discussing treatment initiation with ICIs. Twenty physicians at a cancer institution with experience in the treatment of irAEs were interviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to organize and interpret data. The physicians were 11 medical oncologists and 9 non-oncology specialists. The following themes were identified: (1) current methods used by physicians to provide information to patients and delivery options; (2) factors to make decisions about whether or not to start ICIs in patients who have cancer and pre-existing autoimmune conditions; (3) learning points for patients to understand; (4) preferences for the delivery of ICI information; and (5) barriers to the implementation of ICI information in clinics. Regarding points to discuss with patients, physicians agreed that the benefits of ICIs, the probability of irAEs, and risks of underlying autoimmune condition flares with the use of ICIs were most important. Non-oncologists were additionally concerned about how ICIs affect the autoimmune disease (e.g., impact on disease activity, need for changes in medications for the autoimmune disease, and monitoring of autoimmune conditions).

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.

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.

Development and validation of a web-based patient decision aid for immunotherapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

Background

Patients with metastatic melanoma and their physicians are confronted with a complex decision regarding first-line therapy. Risks and benefits vary considerably between various treatment options. With this in mind, we aim to develop and evaluate a patient decision aid (PtDA) to inform patients about the risks and benefits of treatment options, namely, immunotherapy as monotherapy, immunotherapy as combination therapy, and treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. We aim to test whether the use of this PtDA before medical consultation will increase patients’ knowledge of treatment options and thus promote shared decision-making (SDM) and patient decision satisfaction.

Methods

In total, 128 patients with metastatic melanoma from two German cancer centers will be randomized to the intervention group (IG), receiving access to the PtDA before medical consultation, or the control group (CG), receiving treatment as usual (TAU), i.e., medical consultation alone. There will be three major assessment points (before intervention, T₀; after intervention, T₁; and 3 months after intervention, T₂). The main outcome is the patient’s knowledge of their treatment options, measured by a self-developed, piloted multiple-choice test at T₁. Secondary outcome measures will include the extent of SDM during medical consultation, assessed by Observer OPTION 5, and patient decision satisfaction, assessed by the Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SwD), at T₁ and T₂.

Discussion

This trial will assess the effectiveness of a developed PtDA to enhance patient knowledge of treatment options for metastatic melanoma, SDM, and patient decision satisfaction. If the efficacy can be proven, the PtDA will be implemented nationwide in Germany to close a relevant gap in the education and care of patients with metastatic melanoma.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04240717. Registered on 27 January 2020

Patient preferences for treatment of advanced melanoma: impact of comorbidities

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Choice of treatment for advanced melanoma is crucially influenced by comorbidities and patient preferences. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of comorbidities on preferences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

150 patients with melanoma stage IIC-IV completed a discrete choice experiment to determine preferences for outcome (overall response rate [ORR], 2-year survival, progression-free survival [PFS], time to response [TTR], kind of adverse events [AE], AE-related treatment discontinuation) and process attributes (frequency and route of administration [RoA], frequency of consultations) of systemic melanoma treatments. The impact of comorbidities was assessed by analysis of variance and multivariate regression.

RESULTS

Participants with hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases attached significantly greater importance to TTR and RoA than others. Respondents with arthropathy cared more about TTR (β = 0.179, P = 0.047) and RoA, but less about ORR (β = -0.209, P =  0.021). Individuals with diabetes considered AE (β = 0.185, P = 0.039) and frequency of consultations more essential, but ORR less relevant. Those with other malignancies were particularly worried about treatment discontinuation (β = 0.219, P =  0.008), but less about ORR (β = -0.202, P =  0.015). Participants with depression focused more on PFS (β = 0.201, P =  0.025) and less on TTR (β = -0.201, P =  0.023) and RoA (β = -0.167, P =  0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment preferences of melanoma patients vary significantly dependent on comorbidities.

Patient Preferences Around Extent of Surgery in Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background: Patient preferences pertaining to surgical options for thyroid cancer management are not well studied. Our aim was to conduct a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to characterize participants' views on the relative importance of various risks and benefits associated with lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy for low-risk thyroid cancer. Methods: Adult participants with low-risk thyroid cancer or a thyroid nodule requiring surgery were asked to choose between experimentally designed surgical options with varying levels of risk of nerve damage (1%, 9%, 14%), hypocalcemia (0%, 3%, 8%), risk of needing a second surgery (0%, 40%), cancer recurrence (1%, 3%, 5%), and need for daily thyroid hormone supplementation (yes, no). Their choices were analyzed using random-parameters logit regression. Results: One hundred fifty participants completed an online DCE survey. Median age was 58 years; 82% were female. Twenty-four participants (16%) had a diagnosis of thyroid cancer at the time of completing the survey, and 126 (84%) had a thyroid nodule necessitating surgery. On average, 35% of participants' choices were explained by differences in the risk of cancer recurrence; 28% by the chance of needing a second surgery; 19% by the risk of nerve damage; and 9% by differences in risks of hypocalcemia and the need for thyroid hormone supplementation. When accounting for differences in postoperative risks, the average patient favored lobectomy over total thyroidectomy as long as the chance of needing a second (i.e., completion) surgery after initial lobectomy remained below 30%. Participants would accept a 4.1% risk of cancer recurrence if the risk of a second surgery could be reduced from 40% to 10%. Conclusions: While patients with thyroid cancer may have clear preferences for extent of surgery, common themes moderating preferences for surgical interventions were identified in the DCE. Adequate preoperative evaluation to decrease the chance of a second surgery and providing patients with a good understanding of risks and benefits associated with extent of surgery can lead to better treatment decision-making.

Patient Preferences in Adjuvant and Palliative Treatment of Advanced Melanoma: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Treatment paradigms for advanced melanoma have changed fundamentally over recent years. A discrete choice experiment was performed to explore patient preferences regarding outcome (overall response rate, 2-year survival rate, progression-free survival, time to response, type of adverse events, probability of adverse event-related treatment discontinuation) and process attributes (frequency and route of administration, frequency of consultations) of modern treatments for melanoma. Mean preferences of 150 patients with melanoma stage IIC-IV were highest for overall response rate (relative importance score (RIS) 26.8) and 2-year survival (RIS 21.6), followed by type of adverse events (RIS 11.7) and probability of adverse event-related treatment discontinuation (RIS 9.2). Interest in overall response rate and 2-year survival declined with increasing age, whereas process attributes gained importance. Participants who had experienced treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors valued overall response rate more highly and worried less about the type of adverse events. In conclusion, patients with advanced melanoma consider efficacy of treatment options most important, followed by safety, but preferences vary with individual and disease-related characteristics.

Preferences for Immunotherapy in Melanoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy improves overall survival for patients with metatstatic melanoma and improves recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting, but is costly and has adverse effects. Little is known about the preferences of patients and clinicians regarding immunotherapy. This study aimed to identify factors important to patients and clinicians when deciding about immunotherapy for stages 2-4 melanoma.

METHODS

This study searched the Medline, EMBASE, ECONLIT, PsychINFO, and COCHRANE Systematic Reviews databases from inception to June 2018 for immunotherapy choice and preference studies. Findings were tabulated and summarized, and study reporting was assessed against recommended checklists.

RESULTS

This investigation identified eight studies assessing preferences for melanoma treatment; four studies regarding nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab; and four studies regarding interferon conducted in the United States, Germany, and Australia. The following 10 factors were important to decision-making: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, treatment side effects, dosing regimen, patient or payer cost, patient age, clinician or family/friend treatment recommendation, quality of life, and psychosocial effects. Overall survival was the most important factor for all respondents. The patients judged severe toxicities to be tolerable for small survival gains. The description of information about treatment harms and benefits was limited in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall survival was of primary importance to patients and clinicians considering immunotherapy. Impaired quality of life due to adverse effects appeared to be a second-order consideration. Future research is required to determine preferences for contemporary combination therapies, extended treatment durations, and avoidance of chronic side effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095899.