Benefit-risk trade-offs in treatment choice in advanced HER2 negative breast cancer: patient and oncologist perspectives

Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit

BACKGROUND

Effective techniques for eliciting patients' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients' considerations of the time burdens of care ("time toxicity") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic.

Investigating the Salience of Clinical Meaningfulness and Clinically Meaningful Outcomes in Metastatic Breast Cancer Care Delivery

PURPOSE

As metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treatment evolves, there is a need to understand how clinical meaningfulness, or a meaningful change in a patient's daily life, and clinically meaningful outcomes inform patient-centered care. Partnering with key stakeholders ensures patient-centered research incorporates the knowledge and expertise of advisors with lived experience. We describe a multistakeholder engagement approach to examine how people living with mBC (PLWmBC), caregivers, and health care providers interpret clinical meaningfulness and clinically meaningful outcomes and their influence on mBC treatment decision making and care.

METHODS

Qualitative focus groups with PLWmBC, caregivers, and health care providers were conducted and analyzed along three overarching themes: interpretations of clinical meaningfulness and clinically meaningful outcomes; treatment recommendations, preferences, and decisions; and implications for clinical practice. Patient-led and professional organizations served as research partners in study design, implementation, and interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

Partnerships were established with four patient-led and three professional organizations representing diverse constituencies throughout the United States. Twenty-two focus groups were conducted with 50 PLWmBC, 24 caregivers, and 41 health care providers (oncologists, n = 11; advanced practice providers, n = 13; oncology nurses, n = 17) between March and June 2023. PLWmBC and caregivers were unfamiliar with the concepts of clinical meaningfulness and clinically meaningful outcomes. Although health care providers were familiar, they did not use the terms when discussing treatment with PLWmBC. Across groups, participants emphasized the importance of meaningful outcomes beyond overall survival, including quality of life and improvement in symptoms and functioning. Participants noted that outcomes considered meaningful are individualized and dynamic.

CONCLUSION

This study offers insight into how partnering with patient advocacy and professional organizations can enhance research quality and aid translation of findings to clinical practice, thereby supporting patient-centered care.

Patient Preferences Influencing Treatment Decision-Making in Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Germany, Italy, and Japan

Purpose

Patients with early breast cancer (eBC) are increasingly provided with different options, which may involve a sequence of different treatments and treatment modalities, and eligibility for certain adjuvant treatments depending upon pre-surgical and surgical outcomes. This study examined patient preferences around aspects of treatment decision-making in eBC.

Patients and Methods

A total of 452 patients with self-reported eBC in Germany (n=151), Italy (n=151), and Japan (n=150) completed an online survey about physician interactions and treatment side effects. The survey included best-worst scaling (BWS) to assess prioritization of 13 statements reflecting aspects of treatment decision-making. In a series of choice tasks, participants chose their most and least preferred options among subsets of 4 statements. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate BWS preference scores for each statement. BWS scores were based on the number of times a statement was chosen as most versus least preferred; scores total 100 for each patient.

Results

The most preferred aspects of treatment decision-making were "treatment aggressiveness matches personal risk" (mean BWS score = 13.49), "being told about what is coming" (13.18), deciding based on "own surgical outcome" (11.90), "avoiding unnecessary treatment" (10.35), and "involving in treatment decisions" (9.44). The least preferred aspects were "not being asked about treatment decisions along the way" (3.27) and "receiving the same treatment as other patients" (3.41). Patients in Japan preferred "being told about what is coming", "deciding based on own surgical outcome", "avoiding unnecessary treatment", and being "involved in decisions" more than patients in Italy and Germany. Patients in Germany were more satisfied with their physician interactions and care, although their outcomes were not always better than those in Italy and Japan.

Conclusion

Patients value individualized treatment tailored to their risk of recurrence and tolerance of side effects, highlighting the need for focused patient education about options, to encourage their engagement.

Differences in Preferences for Drug Therapy Between Patients with Metastatic Versus Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Compared with early stages (eBC) metastatic BC (mBC) is incurable. In mBC, aggressive treatment may increase the duration of survival but may also cause severe treatment side effects. A better understanding how patients with BC value different aspects of drug therapy might improve treatment effectiveness, satisfaction and adherence. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise studies evaluating patient preferences for drug therapy of BC and to compare preferences of patients with eBC and mBC.

METHODS

The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched on 22 June 2023. All studies published to this point were considered. Original studies reporting patient preferences on BC drug therapy determined by any type of choice experiment were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the effect measures presented as relative importance ratings, trade-offs (required benefit to make a therapy worthwhile) or monetary values of the treatment attributes was reported for each study. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies was performed using the checklist for observational studies from the STROBE Statement and the checklist from 'Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User's Guide'. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42022377031).

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis evaluating the preferences of patients with eBC (n = 18), mBC (n = 10) or any stage BC (n = 6) on, for example, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, hormonal therapy or CKD4/6-inhibitors using different types of choice experiments. Regardless of the stage, most patients valued treatment effectiveness in terms of survival gains higher than potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Treatment cost, mode of administration, treatment regimen and monitoring aspects were considered as least important treatment attributes. In addition, preferences concerning 16 different types of ADRs were described, showing high heterogeneity within BC stages. Yet, comparable results across BC stages were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the stage, patients with BC consistently valued survival gains as the most important attribute and were willing to accept the risk of potential ADRs. Incorporating patient preferences in shared decision making may improve the effectiveness of interventions by enhancing adherence to drug therapy in patients suffering from BC.

Patient Preferences for Adjuvant Treatment in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment

Purpose

The evolving treatment landscape in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma creates challenges for clinicians and patients in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Here, we aimed to understand adjuvant treatment preferences among patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection, including tradeoffs between efficacy outcomes and toxicity risks.

Patients and Methods

An observational, cross-sectional study utilizing a discrete choice experiment was conducted across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany via a web-based survey. Patients ≥18 years of age who self-reported as having been diagnosed with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were included. Patients indicated their preferences between hypothetical treatment profiles varying in eight attributes relating to efficacy, regimen, and side effects. Preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression; relative attribute importance estimates were calculated.

Results

Overall, 207 patients were included (age ≥56 years, 65.7%; male, 54.1%). Patients chose adjuvant treatment 91.2% of the time vs no treatment. Prolonging overall survival from 25 to 78 months was most important, followed by reducing serious side effect risks. Increasing disease-free survival from 12 to 24 months was more important than decreasing risks of fatigue from 54% to 15% and nausea from 53% to 7%. Treatment with the shortest dosing regimen was more important for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy; prolonging overall survival was more important than reducing the risk of a serious side effect in non-US patients; the opposite was found in the United States.

Conclusion

Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection preferred adjuvant treatment over no treatment regardless of side effects. Patients prioritized overall survival improvements followed by a reduced side effect profile.

Patient Preferences in Metastatic Breast Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

People with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have diverse medical, physical, and psychosocial needs that require multidimensional care. Understanding patient preferences is crucial to tailor treatments, services, and foster patient-centered care. A scoping review was performed to summarize the current evidence on the preferences of people with MBC regarding their care to identify knowledge gaps and key areas for future research. The Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases were searched. Twenty studies enrolling 3354 patients met the study eligibility criteria. Thirteen quantitative studies, four mixed methods studies, and three qualitative studies were included. Seven studies captured healthcare provider perspectives; thirteen studies evaluated patient preferences relating specifically to cancer treatments; three studies evaluated preferences relating to supportive care; and four studies evaluated communication and decision-making preferences. The current literature evaluating MBC patient preferences is heterogeneous with a focus on cancer treatments. Future research should explore patient preferences relating to multidisciplinary, multi-modal care that aims to improve quality of life. Understanding MBC patient preferences regarding their comprehensive care can help tailor healthcare delivery, enhance the patient experience, and improve outcomes.