Physician preferences for chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in China: evidence from multicentre discrete choice experiments

Treatment preferences among Japanese patients and physicians for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Evidence is limited on preferences of Japanese patients and physicians in treatment for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several oral or intravenous novel agents for EGFR exon 20 insertions are under development. The aim of our study was to investigate which attributes of novel treatments influenced selection of oral or intravenous agents among treated patients and treating physicians in Japan.

METHODS

The study was designed by board-certified oncologists, patient representatives, and analytics specialists. Eligible participants completed an online survey with a discrete choice experiment presenting two treatment profiles described by attributes: mode of administration (oral or intravenous); frequency of administration; overall response rate (ORR); average progression-free survival (PFS); chance of experiencing severe side effects (SEs); mild-moderate gastrointestinal SEs; mild-moderate skin-related SEs; and patient out-of-pocket costs.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (all self-reported EGFR-mutant) and 74 physicians participated from December 2021 to August 2022. All attributes being equal, there was greater preference for oral administration. However, there was greater preference for intravenous over oral, when ORR and PFS improved by 10% and 1 month, and severe SEs reduced by 10%. Physicians exhibited greater preference for PFS compared to patients (p < 0.01). Ranked order of attribute importance was as follows: (1) PFS; (2) ORR; (3) severe SEs, expressed by patients and physicians alike.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed Japanese physician and patient preferences in treatment options for EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Compared to the strong preference for a more efficacious drug, the preference of oral versus intravenous revealed a smaller impact.

How Do Treatment Preferences of Patients With Cancer Compare With Those of Oncologists and Family Members? Evidence From a Discrete Choice Experiment in China

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the treatment preference among oncologists, patients with lung cancer, and their family members in China.

METHODS

A face-to-face discrete choice experiment survey was conducted among oncologists, patients, and their family members. Participants completed 13 choice sets describing 6 key attributes, namely, overall survival time, risk of severe adverse effect, severity of pain, appetite, physical functioning status, and monthly cost. Mixed logit model and latent class analysis were used to estimate attribute level preference weights and the relative importance (RI) for attributes. The willingness to pay (WTP) and maximum acceptable risk (MAR) were also estimated. The RI, WTP, and MAR of oncologists, patients, and family members were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 121 oncologists and 161 dyads of patients and family members completed the survey. Overall survival time, physical functioning status, and pain were the 3 most important attributes across all 3 groups. Oncologists and family members had higher RI on overall survival time than patients (48% and 51% vs 38%). Patients had higher RI on physical functioning status and pain (23% and 14%) than oncologists (13% and 12%) and family members (16% and 11%). For extending survival, patients had the least WTP, and family members had the highest MAR. The latent class analysis identified 2 classes in the patient group and 3 classes in oncologist and family member groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There were differences in preferences for survival, risk, quality of life, and costs associated with cancer treatments among patients, oncologists, and family members. This finding highlights the need of involving patients in treatment decision making in China.

Physician Preferences and Shared-Decision Making for the Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatment of Lung Cancer: A Discrete-Choice Experiment Study in China

BACKGROUND

With progress being made in the treatment of cancer, various clinical and treatment options are being pursued. In China, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is used widely in the treatment of cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate TCM treatment preferences and SDM mode of physicians in China.

METHODS

This study was conducted among physicians (n=185) from nine tertiary hospitals in China by discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) survey. The DCE was developed with the inclusion of the most relevant attributes at appropriate levels for the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The empirical data analyses of physicians were performed using mixed logit models. Additionally, subgroup analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 185 respondents completed the questionnaire. All attributes were statistically significant except out-of-pocket costs. Physicians showed the strongest preferences for increasing disease control rate, relieving nausea and vomiting, and reducing the risk of side effects. Most of the physicians (78.38%) self-reported a high willingness to use SDM during the decision-making process. The physicians with a higher SDM-Q-Doc score had more preference for improving all three attributes than those with a lower score. Little variation was found in preferences among the physicians with other sociodemographic characteristics.

CONCLUSION

In China, physicians considered disease control rate as the most essential attribute in the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The physicians in China mainly preferred SDM, and the preference was different according to SDM mode when involving the TCM therapy for patients with lung cancer. The study findings could inform future TCM therapy for lung cancer and promote SDM.

Preference to Family Doctor Contracted Service of Patients with Chronic Disease in Urban China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

Shanghai is one of the pioneers proposing family doctor contract service (FDCS). However, there is no quantitative research focusing on the Shanghai experience from a demand-side perspective. This study investigated Shanghai chronic patients' relative preferences for FDCS using a discrete choice experiment method.

METHODS

A face-to-face discrete choice experiment (DCE) was performed to elicit the preference with 300 samples. Attributes and levels were extracted from the literature review and focus group consultation with patients. Seven attributes, follow-up frequency, medicine accessibility, family doctor competency, health management, referral convenience, appointment flexibility, and shared decision-making, were decided. Three levels were attached to each attribute. A mixed logit model was used to evaluate the multiple-choice data.

RESULTS

A total of 248 patients completed the survey. Patient valued FDCS medicine accessibility (β=0.57, P < 0.05), and high family doctor competency (β= 0.43, P < 0.05), regular health management activities (β=0.36, P < 0.05), high follow-up frequency (β=0.31, P < 0.05) the most. The good doctor-patient shared decision-making atmosphere (β=0.12, P < 0.05), high referral convenience (β=0.06, P < 0.05) and high appointment flexibility (β=0.04, P < 0.05) are valued as less important. No significant preference heterogeneity was identified for patients with different sociodemographic characteristics. Respondents reported other FDCS needs, including online health consultation, specialist services in local institutes, higher reimbursement rates, free rehabilitation guidance for the disabled and personal health management.

CONCLUSION

This research is the first discrete choice experiment FDCS preference research targeting on Chinese urban population. The results suggested that to increase the quality of FDCS, policy-makers should prioritize follow-up frequency, medicine accessibility, family doctor competency and health management. The service package should consider a higher reimbursement rate and rehabilitation guidance for the disabled if extra health-care resources available. Future FDCS policy should consider stated societal preference and be congruent with it.

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.

Precision medicine and the principle of equal treatment: a conjoint analysis

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine biomarkers stratify patients into groups that are offered different treatments, but this may conflict with the principle of equal treatment. While some patient characteristics are seen as relevant for unequal treatment and others not, it is known that they all may influence treatment decisions. How biomarkers influence these decisions is not known, nor is their ethical relevance well discussed.

METHODS

We distributed an email survey designed to elicit treatment preferences from Norwegian doctors working with cancer patients. In a forced-choice conjoint analysis pairs of hypothetical patients were presented, and we calculated the average marginal component effect of seven individual patient characteristics, to estimate how each of them influence doctors' priority-setting decisions.

RESULTS

A positive biomarker status increased the probability of being allocated the new drug, while older age, severe comorbidity and reduced physical function reduced the probability. Importantly, sex, education level and smoking status had no significant influence on the decision.

CONCLUSION

Biomarker status is perceived as relevant for priority setting decisions, alongside more well-known patient characteristics like age, physical function and comorbidity. Based on our results, we discuss a framework that can help clarify whether biomarker status should be seen as an ethically acceptable factor for providing unequal treatment to patients with the same disease.

Differences in Lung Cancer Treatment Preferences Among Oncologists, Patients and Family Members: A Semi-Structured Qualitative Study in China

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment decision-making often needs to balance benefits, harms, and costs. This study sought to identify the differences in cancer treatment preference among oncologists, patients and their family members in China.

METHODS

A semi-structured face-to-face qualitative interview was conducted among oncologists, patients and their family members recruited in four tertiary hospitals in China. The interview guide was developed based on literature review and expert consultation. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences when making lung cancer treatment decisions. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analyzed. The preferences were compared among three groups of participants.

RESULTS

A total of 17 participants (5 oncologists, 6 dyads of patients and family members) were interviewed between June and July 2019. Five themes, namely, survival benefit, adverse effect/symptom, treatment process, treatment cost, and the impact on daily life were identified. The oncologists and family members gave highest priority on survival benefit, while the patients are concerned most about treatment cost and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals different preferences for cancer treatment among oncologists, patients and their family members in China. Education is needed to empower patients and family members and promote share decision-making in this country.

Patient Preference for Antiepileptic Drugs Treatment in China: Evidence From the Discrete Choice Experiment

Objective: Explore Chinese patients' risk-benefit preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) treatment through the discrete choice experiment (DCE).

Method: Six attributes including the efficacy of AEDs, adverse reactions (digestive system, neuropsychic systems, and the effects on the fetus), dosing frequency and drug costs (to estimate patient WTP) were included in the DCE questionnaire based on results collected from literature reviews, expert consultation, and patient survey. The alternative-specific conditional logit model was used to analyze patient preference and WTP for each attribute and its level and to assess the sociodemographic impact and clinical characteristics.

Results: A total of 151 valid questionnaires were collected. The result shows that five out of the six attributes are significant, except the dosing frequency. Among the six attributes, the efficacy of AEDs (10.0; 95% CI 8.9–11.1) is mostly concerned by patients, followed by the effects of AEDs on the fetus (8.9; 95% CI 7.7–10.1), duration of side effects in the neuropsychic system (4.9; 95% CI 3.7–6.0) and adverse reactions of the digestive system (3.2; 95% CI 1.5–4.2). The patients surveyed are willing to spend ¥ 1,246 (95% CI, ¥ 632- ¥ 1,861) per month to ensure 100% seizure control, and ¥ 1,112 (95% CI, ¥ 586–¥ 1,658) to reduce the risk of the drug affecting the fetus to 3%. Besides, it was found that personal characteristics including the intention for conception and AEDs treatment regimens have statistical significance.

Conclusion: Improving the drug's efficacy and reducing its side effects are predominant considerations for patients with epilepsy in China, especially for those who are concerned about the seizure control and the drug effect on the fetus. This finding is useful to physicians and can encourage shared decision-making between the patients and their doctors in the clinic.