Treatment-related experiences and preferences of patients with lung cancer: a qualitative analysis

Exploring patient reported quality of life in lung cancer patients: A qualitative study of patient-reported outcome measures

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death globally and provides a major disease burden likely to substantially impact quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been identified as effective methods of evaluating patient QoL. Existing lung cancer-specific PROMs however have uncertain utility and minimal patient involvement in their design and development. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the patient perspective of existing PROMs and to explore their appropriateness for population-based descriptions of lung cancer-related QoL.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study was conducted consisting of semi-structured interviews with 14 patients recruited from the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry and Alfred Hospital using purposive sampling. Interviews first explored the factors most important to lung cancer patients QoL, and second, patient's perspectives on the appropriateness of existing PROMs. Thematic analysis was used to develop themes, and content analysis was conducted to determine PROM acceptability.

RESULTS

Five novel themes were identified by patients as being important impacts on QoL: Personal attitude toward the disease is important for coping; independence is valued; relationships with family and friends are important; relationships with treating team are meaningful; personal and public awareness of lung cancer is limited. These patient-identified impacts are poorly covered in existing lung cancer-specific PROMs. Patients welcomed and appreciated the opportunity to complete PROMs; however, they identified problems with existing PROMs relevance, tone, and formatting.

CONCLUSION

Existing lung cancer PROMs poorly reflect the five themes identified in this study as most important to lung cancer patients QoL. This study reaffirms the need to review existing PROMs to ensure utility and construct validity. Future PROM development must engage key patient-generated themes and evolve to reflect the changing management and therapeutic landscape.

Assessing the unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer treated by biological and precision therapies: protocol for TARGET, a mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Biological and precision therapies are increasingly used in cancer treatment. Although they may improve survival, they are also associated with various-and unique-adverse effects, which can be long lasting. Little is known about the experiences of people treated with these therapies. Moreover, their supportive care needs have not been fully explored. Consequently, it is unclear whether existing instruments adequately capture the unmet needs of these patients. The TARGET study seeks to address these evidence gaps by exploring the needs of people treated with these therapies with the aim of developing an unmet needs assessment instrument for patients on biological and precision therapies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The TARGET study will adopt a multi-methods design involving four Workstreams (1) a systematic review to identify, describe and assess existing unmet needs instruments in advanced cancer; (2) qualitative interviews with patients on biological and precision therapies, and their healthcare professionals, to explore experiences and care needs; (3) development and piloting of a new (or adapted) unmet needs questionnaire (based on the findings of Workstream 1 and Workstream 2) designed to capture the supportive care needs of these patients; and finally, (4) a large-scale patient survey using the new (or modified) questionnaire to determine (a) the psychometric properties of the questionnaire, and (b) the prevalence of unmet needs in these patients. Based on the broad activity of biological and precision therapies, the following cancers will be included: breast, lung, ovarian, colorectal, renal and malignant melanoma.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by National Health Service (NHS) Heath Research Authority Northeast Tyne and Wear South Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 21/NE/0028). Dissemination of the research findings will take several formats to reach different audiences, including patients, healthcare professionals and researchers.

Development of a Conceptual Model of the Patient Experience in Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Interview Study

INTRODUCTION

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a subtype of lung cancer, the second most common cancer diagnosis worldwide. Currently, there is little published qualitative research that provides insight into the disease-related symptoms and impacts that are relevant to patients living with SCLC as directly reported by patients themselves.

METHODS

This qualitative, cross-sectional, noninterventional, descriptive study included concept elicitation interviews with participants diagnosed with SCLC and the development of a conceptual model of clinical treatment benefit.

RESULTS

Concept elicitation interview data from 26 participants with SCLC were used to develop a conceptual model of clinical treatment benefit that organized 28 patient-reported concepts into two domains: disease-related symptoms (organ-specific and systemic) and impacts. Organ-specific symptoms included cough, chest pain, and difficulty breathing. Systemic symptoms included pain, fatigue, appetite loss, and dizziness. Impacts included physical functioning, role functioning, reduced movement, impact on sleep, and weight loss.

CONCLUSION

As evidenced by this study, people with SCLC experience considerable and significant symptoms and impacts, including physical and role functioning challenges, that affect their quality of life. This conceptual model will inform the design of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire for a future SCLC clinical trial, helping to establish the content validity of the items and questionnaires used in the trial and ensuring that the questionnaires and items selected are appropriately targeted to the population. This conceptual model could also be used to inform future SCLC clinical trials.

'What you suggest is not what I expected': How pre-consultation expectations affect shared decision-making in patients with low back pain

OBJECTIVE

Existing studies on shared decision-making (SDM) have hardly taken into consideration that patients could have independently developed expectations prior to their consultation with a healthcare provider, nor have studies explored how such expectations affect SDM. Therefore, we explore how pre-consultation expectations affect SDM in patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study through telephone interviews with 10 patients and seven care professionals (physicians, nurse, physician assistants) and 63 in-person observations of patient-physician consultations in an outpatient clinic in the Netherlands. Transcripts were analyzed through an open coding process.

RESULTS

A discrepancy existed between what patients expected and what care professionals could offer. Professionals perceived they had to undertake additional efforts to address patients' 'unrealistic' expectations while attempting SDM. Patients, in turn, were often dissatisfied with the outcomes of the SDM encounter, as they believed their own expectations were not reflected in the final decision.

CONCLUSION

Unaddressed pre-consultation expectations form a barrier to constructive SDM encounters.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Patients' pre-consultation expectations need to be explored during the SDM encounter. To achieve decisions that are truly shared by care professionals and patients, patients' pre-consultation expectations should be better incorporated into SDM models and education.

Family Perspectives on Clinical Research for Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis: Enhancing Equity

Pediatric new drug trials are federally mandated, but family perspectives in multiple sclerosis (MS) research are limited. Due to MS chronicity and long-term medical system involvement, we obtained family views on research priorities and optimized methods for future studies. Focus groups were convened with families impacted by pediatric-onset MS. Recruitment included those followed by the Network of Pediatric MS Centers, geographically disparate locations, and centers' voluntary election. Study questions included: healthcare experiences, clinical trials perspectives, cognitive/psychosocial/educational outcomes, disease course and disability accrual. All subjects supported future clinical studies. Patients highlighted contribution to knowledge base but were wary of experimental medication and disease-course impeding activities. Parents underscored medication delivery modalities, side-effects, and limiting children's discomfort. All wanted study relevance made explicit. Suggested future study design elements included: providing compensation, limiting assumptions regarding outcome linkages, understanding study-related psychological impacts, and reducing participation burdens. Rare disease research can assist general medicine diagnosis and referral. Variable study designs and explicit rationale may augment participation. Closing the pediatric research gap requires family engagement in the research process.

How patients being treated for non-small cell lung cancer value treatment benefit despite side effects

PURPOSE

To describe symptoms and side effects experienced by patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), assess how patients allocate sensations (i.e. symptoms or side effects) to either the disease or its treatment, and evaluate how patients balance side effects with treatment benefits.

METHODS

Qualitative sub-studies were conducted as part of two clinical trials in patients treated for advanced NSCLC (AURA [NCT01802632]; ARCTIC [NCT02352948]).

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 23 patients and 19 patients in the AURA and ARCTIC sub-studies, respectively. The most commonly experienced symptoms/side effects were respiratory (81% of patients), digestive (76%), pain and discomfort (76%), energy-related (71%), and sensory (62%). Patients identified a sensation as a treatment side effect if they had not experienced it before, if there was a temporal link between the sensation and receipt of treatment, and/or if their doctors consistently told or asked them about it in relation to side effects. Themes that emerged when patients talked about their cancer treatment and its side effects related to the serious nature of their advanced disease and their treatment expectations. Patients focused on treatment benefits, wanting a better quality of life, being hopeful, not really having a choice, and not thinking about side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In these two qualitative sub-studies, patients with advanced NSCLC valued the benefits of their treatment regardless of side effects that they experienced. Patients weighed their options against the seriousness of their disease and expressed their willingness to tolerate their side effects in return for receiving continued treatment benefits.

Line of therapy and patient preferences regarding lung cancer treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

A growing literature on patient preferences informs decisions in research, regulatory science, and value assessment, but few studies have explored how preferences vary across patients with differing treatment experience. We sought to quantify patient preferences for the benefits and risks of lung cancer treatment and test how preferences differed by line of therapy (LOT).

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) following rigorous patient and stakeholder engagement. The DCE spanned five attributes (each with three levels): progression-free survival (PFS), short-term side effects, long-term side effects, risk of developing late-onset side effects, and mode of administration (MOA) - each defined across 3 relevant levels. A D-efficient design was used to generate 3 survey blocks of 9 paired-profile choice tasks each and respondents were asked which profile they preferred and then if they preferred to have no treatment (opt-out). A mixed logit model, controlling for opt-out, was used to estimate preferences. Preferences and trade-offs between PFS and other attributes were compared across two groups: those receiving ≤1 LOT and those receiving ≥2 LOT.

RESULTS

Of the 466 participants, 42% received ≤1 LOT and 58% received ≥2 LOT. Stated preferences differed between the groups overall (p<.001) and specifically for 18 months of PFS (p<.001), moderate short-term side effects (p<.001), no long-term side effects (p=.03), and 30% chance of late-onset side effects (p=.02). Those receiving differing amounts of LOT were willing to trade different amounts of PFS to change from moderate to mild short-term side effects (p<.001), moderate to no (p<.001) and mild to no (p<.001) long-term side effects. There were also differing amounts of tradeoff acceptable between the groups for a 10% decrease in risk of late-onset side effects (p=.016), a decrease in MOA from infusion every 3 weeks to pills taken daily at any time (p=.005) and from pills taken daily without food to pills taken daily at any time (p<.001).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate differences in preferences based on experience with LOT, suggesting that patient treatment experience may have an impact on their preferences. As patient preference data become an important component of treatment decision making, preference differences should be considered when recommending therapies at different stages in the treatment journey. Understanding patient preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to informing shared decision-making and ensuring treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals.

What Matters Most to Lung Cancer Patients? A Qualitative Study in Italy and Belgium to Investigate Patient Preferences

Background: The potential value of patient preference studies has been recognized in clinical individual treatment decision-making between clinicians and patients, as well as in upstream drug decision-making. Drug developers, regulators, reimbursement and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are exploring how the use of patient preference studies could inform drug development, regulatory benefit risk-assessment and reimbursement decisions respectively. Understanding patient preferences may be especially valuable in decisions regarding Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) treatment options, where a variety of treatment options with different characteristics raise uncertainty about which features are most important to NSCLC patients. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, this qualitative study aimed to identify patient-relevant lung cancer treatment characteristics.

Methods: This study consisted of a scoping literature review and four focus group discussions, 2 in Italy and 2 in Belgium, with a total of 24 NSCLC patients (Stages III-IV). The focus group discussions sought to identify which treatment characteristics patients find most relevant. The discussions were analyzed thematically using a thematic inductive analysis.

Results: Patients highlighted themes reflecting: 1) positive effects or expected gains from treatment such as greater life expectancy and maintenance of daily functioning, 2) negative effects or adverse events related to therapy that negatively impact patients’ daily functioning such as fatigue and 3) uncertainty regarding the duration and type of treatment effects. These overarching themes were consistent among patients from Belgium and Italy, suggesting that treatment aspects related to efficacy and safety as well as the psychological impact of lung cancer treatment are common areas of concern for patients, regardless of cultural background or country.

Discussion: Our findings illustrate the value of using qualitative methods with patients to identify preferred treatment characteristics for advanced lung cancer. These could inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding treatment options.

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Study Protocol Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients

Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey.

Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts.

Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.

Flexible care in breast cancer

Treatment of patients with cancer in hospitals or clinics is resource-intensive and imposes a burden on patients. 'Flexible care' is a term that can be used to describe treatment administered outside the oncology ward, oncological outpatient clinic or office-based oncologist setting. Programmes that reduce travel burden by bringing cancer treatment to the patient's home, workplace or closer to the patient's home, in the form of satellite clinics or mobile cancer units, expand treatment capacity and are well received. Clinical trial data show that, compared with intravenous administration, subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of trastuzumab is preferred by patients with breast cancer (BC), saves healthcare professionals' (HCPs) time, reduces drug preparation and administration time and reduces direct and indirect costs. As such, s.c. trastuzumab is well suited to flexible care. The results of a Belgian study (BELIS) show that home administration of s.c. trastuzumab is feasible and preferred by patients with BC. Numerous programmes and pilot studies in Europe show that s.c. trastuzumab can be administered effectively in the patient's home, in primary care settings or local hospitals. Such programmes require planning, training, careful patient selection and technology to link patients, caregivers and specialists in oncology clinics. Once these elements are in place, flexible care offers patients with BC a choice of how treatment may be delivered and lead to improved quality of life, while reducing pressure on HCPs and hospitals. The concept of flexible care is particularly relevant amid the COVID-19 pandemic where guidelines have been developed encouraging remote care.

Therapy preferences of patients with lung and colon cancer: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

There is increasing interest in studies that examine patient preferences to measure health-related outcomes. Understanding patients' preferences can improve the treatment process and is particularly relevant for oncology. In this study, we aimed to identify the subgroup-specific treatment preferences of German patients with lung cancer (LC) or colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Six discrete choice experiment (DCE) attributes were established on the basis of a systematic literature review and qualitative interviews. The DCE analyses comprised generalized linear mixed-effects model and latent class mixed logit model.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 310 patients (194 with LC, 108 with CRC, 8 with both types of cancer) with a median age of 63 (SD =10.66) years. The generalized linear mixed-effects model showed a significant (P<0.05) degree of association for all of the tested attributes. "Strongly increased life expectancy" was the attribute given the greatest weight by all patient groups. Using latent class mixed logit model analysis, we identified three classes of patients. Patients who were better informed tended to prefer a more balanced relationship between length and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than those who were less informed. Class 2 (LC patients with low HRQoL who had undergone surgery) gave a very strong weighting to increased length of life. We deduced from Class 3 patients that those with a relatively good life expectancy (CRC compared with LC) gave a greater weight to moderate effects on HRQoL than to a longer life.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival was the most important attribute of therapy for patients with LC or CRC. Differences in treatment preferences between subgroups should be considered in regard to treatment and development of guidelines. Patients' preferences were not affected by sex or age, but were affected by the cancer type, HRQoL, surgery status, and the main source of information on the disease.

Live, Learn, Pass It on: A Patient Advocacy Engagement Project on the Lived Experience of Lung Cancer Survivors

Introduction:

The objective of this project was to engage survivor–advocates by describing their experiences living with lung cancer in an era of increasing treatment options.

Methods:

This was a qualitative engagement project with participants from a lung cancer advocacy organization’s survivor advisory board. Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed for stages and associated experiences using interpretive phenomenological analysis and elements of narrative analysis, in partnership with the patient advocacy organization.

Results:

Of 27 engaged members, interviews were conducted with 19, mostly long-term survivors with stage 3 or 4 lung cancer. Within the quest for patient-centeredness, we identified 3 stages of the patient experience. The stage Live describes the journey of the lived experience; Learn describes the quest for knowledge, empowerment, and skills; and Pass it on describes making a difference through guiding others, building awareness, and community.

Conclusions:

Lung cancer survivor–advocates have an intertwined experience of their personal journey, the quest for knowledge, and developing advocacy. Future patient engagement can incorporate these findings into increasing the survivor-centeredness of partnerships and research, particularly for quality of life and shared decision-making.