Preferences and Priorities for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Treatments Among Patients and Caregivers in the United States

Financial Toxicity and Willingness-to-Pay for Cancer Treatment Among People With Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE

This study used willingness-to-pay (WTP) exercises to explore the relationships between race, financial toxicity, and treatment decision making among people with cancer.

METHODS

A convenience sample of people with multiple myeloma who attended an academic medical center in 2022 was surveyed. Financial toxicity was assessed by the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity, with scores <26 indicating financial toxicity. WTP was assessed with (1) a discrete choice experiment (DCE), (2) fixed-choice tasks, and (3) a bidding game.

RESULTS

In total, 156 people were approached, and 130 completed the survey. The majority of the sample was White (n = 99), whereas 24% (n = 31) was African American or Black. Forty-six percent (n = 60) of the sample were experiencing financial toxicity. In the DCE, the relative importance of cost was twice as high for those with financial toxicity (30% compared with 14%; P < .001). In the fixed-choice tasks, they were twice as likely to accept a treatment with shorter progression-free survival but lower costs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.47; P = .049). In the bidding game, the median monthly WTP of those with financial toxicity was half that of those without ($100 in US dollars [USD] compared with $200 USD; P < .001). Only in the bidding game was race statistically associated with WTP; after controlling for financial toxicity, African American or Black participants were three times as likely (aOR, 3.06; P = .007) to report a lower WTP.

CONCLUSION

Across all three exercises, participants with financial toxicity reported lower WTP than those without. As financial toxicity disproportionally affects some segments of patients, it is possible that financial toxicity contributes to cancer disparities.

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.