Patient Preferences and Urologist Judgments on Prostate Cancer Therapy in Japan

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.

Patient engagement in designing and publishing research in prostate cancer: a scoping review

Patients with cancer have the unique ability of being able to offer valuable insights into how cancer therapeutics may impact the overall patient experience and improve clinical outcomes. Patient engagement could therefore contribute to tailoring treatment strategies and research design according to patient needs. This study evaluated patient engagement in prostate cancer research by identifying patient input in the prostate cancer literature. We performed a keyword cluster analysis of articles from multiple databases and congresses in which patients provided input on disease management or were involved in study design, manuscript authorship or presentation of results (patient voice). In total, 112 studies were included. Patients were involved in the design of 11 studies and were credited as authors in four studies. This review suggests a lack of meaningful patient involvement in prostate cancer research and publications.

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.

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.

Design setting and participants

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.

Results and limitations

Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.

Conclusions

Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.

Patient summary

We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

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.

Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.

CONCLUSION

The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low certainty). Patients continue to value oncological benefits in making decisions on treatments under qualitative assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients' preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.

The Uro-Oncology Multi-disciplinary team (MDT) Clinic – Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes From Implementing a New Model of Care

Introduction

A multi-disciplinary approach has often been advocated to improve the delivery of oncological care, as compared to a mono-disciplinary and linear approach. Our study elucidates the clinical and patient-reported outcomes from a urologic-oncology multi-disciplinary team (MDT) clinic in a regional general hospital.

Materials and Methods

Patients who attended a uro-oncology MDT clinic which was started in January 2019 were identified. This service was specifically catered to patients who were histologically diagnosed with urological cancers. The MDT service comprised a multi-disciplinary tumour board followed by outpatient clinical consults with representatives from urology, medical and radiation oncology. Demographic variables, disease characteristics and treatment rendered were analysed. A survey was administered to assess patient satisfaction.

Results

Fifty patients with a median age of 70 years with complete case records were identified. The cancer types included prostate cancers (46%), urothelial cancers (26%) and renal cell carcinoma (12%) as the most frequent urological cancers. The median time from MDT to therapy initiation was 8 days. Among those with prostate, urothelial, renal and testicular malignancies, 71% (32/45) of our patients received treatment that were in accordance to guideline recommendations. A post-clinic survey showed that patients were satisfied with the information provided during the clinic and this also facilitated decision and time to initiation of therapy.

Conclusion

A multi-disciplinary service comprising a tumour board followed by a one-stop clinic provides patients with multi-disciplinary care, improved access to subsequent therapy, better time efficiency and high patient satisfaction scores. More studies are warranted to demonstrate its oncological outcomes.

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.

Unmet needs in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer from the Japanese patient perspective: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

With novel antiandrogen treatments of varying clinical benefits and risks becoming available, this study investigates how patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) value differences in treatment characteristics.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Patients chose between two hypothetical non-metastatic CRPC (nmCRPC) treatments defined by six attributes: risk of fatigue, falls or fracture, cognitive impairment, hypertension, rashes as side effects to treatment and extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 137 adult male patients with CRPC with no prior experience with chemotherapy and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0-1 were recruited. Patients were excluded if they participated in an investigational programme outside of routine clinical practice, had a clinically relevant medical or psychiatric condition, or diagnosis of visceral/other metastases not related to the prostate, or were otherwise deemed ineligible by the referring physician.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Relative preference weights and relative importance of the attributes was estimated by hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among the treatment attributes, 'risk of cognitive impairment as a side effect of treatment' was the most important attribute (relative importance (RI) (95% CI): 27.47% (24.80% to 30.14%)), followed by 'extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs' (RI (95% CI): 17.87% (15.49% to 20.25%)) and the 'risk of falls or fracture' (RI (95% CI): 15.99% (14.73% to 17.25%)). The 'risk of hypertension as a side effect of treatment' (RI (95% CI): 13.77% (12.73% to 14.81%)) had similar RI as 'risk of rashes as a side effect of treatment' (RI (95% CI): 13.17% (12.15% to 14.19%)), followed by the 'risk of fatigue as a side effect of treatment' (RI (95% CI): 11.74% (10.75% to 12.73%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients consider the risk of cognitive impairment as a side effect of treatment as the most important attribute in nmCRPC, followed by the extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs, and the risk of falls and fracture. These features should be considered in treatment decision making for nmCRPC in Japan.

Understanding Treatment Strategies and Preferences in Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer From the Japanese Physician Perspective

PURPOSE

Sixteen percent (16%) of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) show no bone metastasis at diagnosis. However, 33% will become metastatic within 2 years. The goal of treatment in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC), therefore, is to delay symptomatic metastases without undue toxicity. With novel antiandrogen treatments of different strengths and limitations available, physician preferences for nmCRPC treatment in Japan should be understood.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Physicians chose between two hypothetical treatments in nmCRPC defined by six attributes: risk of fatigue, falls or fracture, cognitive impairment, hypertension, rashes as side effects of treatment, and extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs. Relative preference weights and relative importance were estimated by hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. Physicians were also asked to make treatment decisions based on four hypothetical patient profiles to understand the most important factors driving decision making.

RESULTS

A total of 151 physicians completed the survey. Extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs was the most important attribute (relative importance, 32.3%; CI, 31.3% to 33.3%). Based on summed preference weights across all attributes, preferences for hypothetical treatment profiles I, II, and III were compared. A hypothetical treatment profile with better safety though shorter extension time was preferred (I: mean [standard deviation] = 1.7 [1.6 to 2.1]) over treatment profiles with lower safety but longer extension time (II: -2.7 [-2.8 to -2.6] and III: -0.2 [-0.3 to -0.1]). Treatment characteristics were more important factors for physicians' decision making than patient characteristics in prescribing treatment.

CONCLUSION

Physicians preferred a treatment with better safety profile, and treatment characteristics were the most important factors for decision making. This might have implications in physicians' decision making for nmCRPC treatment in the future in Japan.

Patient and Physician Preferences for Therapy Characteristics for Psoriasis: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Japan

BACKGROUND

With progress being made in the treatment of psoriasis, a variety of clinical research and treatment options are being pursued. This study used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate treatment characteristic preferences for both patients and physicians in Japan. Subgroup analysis was also applied in order to examine differences within the range of patients and within the range of physicians.

METHODS

The DCE was developed with the input of clinical experts in the treatment of psoriasis to ensure inclusion of the most relevant attributes at appropriate levels in a way that is understandable to both physicians and patients. The study was conducted on parallel samples of Japanese physicians (n = 161) and Japanese psoriasis patients (n = 306) through an online panel. For each sample, a conditional logit statistical model and subgroup analysis were then performed to estimate respondent preferences for treatment attributes.

RESULTS

The overall findings are that better treatment efficacy as measured by proportion of patients achieving 90% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 90), lower risk of adverse events and the availability of a bio-holiday are important decision factors for both patients and physicians. Low injection frequency is less of a priority for both samples. Also, while both groups demonstrate a preference to receive the treatment injections at a clinic by a healthcare professional rather than self-injection at home, this is more pronounced for the patient sample. The physician sample shows considerably more emphasis on the type of injection, though both samples prefer subcutaneous injections to intravenous injections.

IMPLICATIONS

This study reveals the importance of addressing both clinical effectiveness and process factors in systemic, non-topical psoriasis treatments to gain acceptance by both physicians and patients. As well as efficacy (as measured by PASI 90), which remains a consistent priority in treatment, administration and development of new treatments should also consider process factors such as the mode of administration and possibility for a bio-holiday.

Current status and progress of focal therapy in Asia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the increasing incidence of low-to-intermediate risk of prostate cancer (PCa) by the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, focal therapy has become one of the promising treatment options in the world. In Asia, same movement are occurring using several technologies including cryoablation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, brachytherapy and irreversible electroporation. However, these are still not common strategies to treat organ-confined PCa. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most updated experience and future direction of focal therapy in Asian countries.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence and diagnosis of PCa are increasing in Asian countries. This increase is related to various factors including the widespread implementation of PSA testing and lifestyle changes to more Westernized diets. With the increasing detection rate of early stage PCa, overdetection and overtreatment are recognized even in Asia. In this setting, accumulating data on multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy as well as MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy suggest the potential in improving the detection of clinically significant PCa in Asia. Furthermore, targeted focal therapy has emerged as a promising treatment strategy aiming for both providing oncological outcome and maintaining functional preservation in many Asian countries.

SUMMARY

At present, focal therapy is not a current standard choice for the treatment of localized PCa in Asian countries. However, with the increase of localized PCa and patient's preference for less invasive treatment with preservation of organ-function, focal therapy should become a definite treatment option for localized PCa in Asia.