Patient Preferences in Adjuvant and Palliative Treatment of Advanced Melanoma: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Using Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Survival Equivalents (QASE) for the Quantification of Non-health Benefits

Interest in using patient preference (PP) data alongside traditional economic models in health technology assessment (HTA) is growing, including using PP data to quantify non-health benefits. However, this is limited by a lack of standardised methods. In this article, we describe a method for using discrete choice experiment (DCE) data to estimate the value of non-health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted survival equivalence (QASE), which is consistent with the concept of value prevalent among HTA agencies. We describe how PP data can be used to estimate QASE, assess the ability to test the face-validity of QASE estimates of changes in mode of administration calculated from five published DCE oncology studies and review the methodological and normative considerations associated with using QASE to support HTA. We conclude that QASE may have some methodological advantages over alternative methods, but this requires DCEs to estimate second-order effects between length and quality of life. In addition, empirical work has yet to be undertaken to substantiate this advantage and demonstrate the validity of QASE. Further work is also required to align QASE with normative objectives of HTA agencies. Estimating QASE would also have implications for the conduct of DCEs, including standardising and defining more clear attribute definitions.

Systemic therapy timing and use in patients with advanced melanoma at the end of life: A retrospective cohort study

Novel systemic therapies for advanced melanoma improve survival, but carry potential serious side effects and high costs. This study aimed to assess the timing and use of systemic therapies in the months before death. Patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma (July 2017-June 2020) who died before July 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We evaluated the timing of systemic therapies within 30 days and 3 months before death, and studied patient and tumor characteristics associated with systemic therapy use between diagnosis and death. Out of 1097 patients 68% received systemic therapy. Almost 25% and 10% started a new therapy within 90 days and within 30 days before death, respectively. Female sex, elevated LDH, BRAF mutation, poor ECOG performance status (≥3), and high comorbidity index reduced the odds of receiving immune therapy. Poor performance status and high comorbidity decreased the odds for both therapies. A considerable number of patients started systemic therapy shortly before death, emphasizing the importance of considering potential benefits and drawbacks through shared decision-making.

Preferences for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

OBJECTIVES

Understanding what matters most to patients and their caregivers is fundamental to delivering high-quality care. This systematic review aimed to characterize and appraise the evidence from discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for palliative care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken for publications up until August 2022. Data were synthesized narratively. Thematic analysis was applied to categorize attributes into groups. Attribute development, frequency, and relative importance were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between patient and proxy respondents.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies spanning 11 countries were included; 59% of studies solely considered preferences for patients with cancer. A range of respondent groups were represented including patients (76%) and proxies (caregivers [35%], health providers [12%], and the public [18%]). A total of 117 individual attributes were extracted and thematically grouped into 8 broad categories and 21 subcategories. Clinical outcomes including quality of life, length of life, and pain control were the most frequently reported attributes, whereas attributes relating to psychosocial components were largely absent. Both patients and proxy respondents prioritized pain control over additional survival time. Nevertheless, there were differences between respondent cohorts in the emphasis on other attributes such as access to care, timely information, and low risk of adverse effects (prioritized by patients), as opposed to cost, quality, and delivery of care (prioritized by proxies).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review underscores the vital role of pain control in palliative care; in addition, it shed light on the complexity and relative strength of preferences for various aspects of care from multiple perspectives, which is useful in developing personalized, patient-centered models of care for individuals nearing the end of life.

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.

Preferences for Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Adults with Resected Stage III Melanoma-A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to quantify adult preferences for adjuvant immunotherapy for resected melanoma and the influence of varying levels of key attributes and baseline characteristics.

METHODS

A D-efficient design generated 12 choice tasks for two alternative treatments, adjuvant immunotherapy or no adjuvant immunotherapy. Recruitment to the online discrete choice experiment (DCE) occurred via survey dissemination by eight Australian melanoma consumer and professional groups, targeting adults with resected stage III melanoma, considering or having received adjuvant immunotherapy. The DCE included six attributes with two to three levels each, including 3-year risk of recurrence, mild, permanent and fatal adverse events (AEs), drug regimen and annual out-of-pocket costs. A mixed multinomial logit model was used to estimate preferences and calculate marginal rates of substitution and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP).

RESULTS

The DCE was completed by 116 respondents, who chose adjuvant immunotherapy over no adjuvant immunotherapy in 70% of choice tasks. Respondents preferred adjuvant immunotherapy when associated with reduced: probabilities of recurrence, permanent and fatal AEs, and out-of-pocket costs. mWTP for an absolute reduction of 1% in 3-year risk of recurrence was less for respondents with lower rather than higher incomes, AU$794 (US$527) and AU$2190 (US$1454) per year. Respondents accepted an additional 4% chance of a permanent AE to reduce their absolute risk of 3-year recurrence by 1%. Respondents were willing to accept an extra 2% chance of 3-year recurrence to lower their chance of a fatal AE by 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost three-quarters of respondents chose adjuvant immunotherapy over no adjuvant immunotherapy, preferring treatment that improved efficacy and safety. Findings may inform decisions about access to adjuvant immunotherapy following surgery for melanoma.

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.

Application of Electronic Health Record Text Mining: Real-World Tolerability, Safety, and Efficacy of Adjuvant Melanoma Treatments

Introduction: Nivolumab (N), pembrolizumab (P), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T) have been registered as adjuvant treatments for resected stage III and IV melanoma since 2018. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a real-world data source that can be used to review treatments in clinical practice. In this study, we applied EHR text-mining software to evaluate the real-world tolerability, safety, and efficacy of adjuvant melanoma treatments. Methods: Adult melanoma patients receiving adjuvant treatment between January 2019 and October 2021 at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, were included. CTcue text-mining software (v3.1.0, CTcue B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) was used to construct rule-based queries and perform context analysis for patient inclusion and data collection from structured and unstructured EHR data. Results: In total, 122 patients were included: 54 patients treated with nivolumab, 48 with pembrolizumab, and 20 with D + T. Significantly more patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity on D + T (N: 16%, P: 6%, D + T: 40%), and X2 (6, n = 122) = 14.6 and p = 0.024. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) mainly showed immune-related treatment-limiting adverse events (AEs), and chronic thyroid-related AE occurred frequently (hyperthyroidism: N: 15%, P: 13%, hypothyroidism: N: 20%, P: 19%). Treatment-limiting toxicity from D + T was primarily a combination of reversible AEs, including pyrexia and fatigue. The 1-year recurrence-free survival was 70.3% after nivolumab, 72.4% after pembrolizumab, and 83.0% after D + T. Conclusions: Text-mining EHR is a valuable method to collect real-world data to evaluate adjuvant melanoma treatments. ICIs were better tolerated than D + T, in line with RCT results. For BRAF+ patients, physicians must weigh the higher risk of reversible treatment-limiting AEs of D + T against the risk of long-term immune-related AEs.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

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.

Application of Discrete Choice Experiment in Health Care: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background: Discrete choice experiment (DCE) as a tool that can measure medical stakeholders' preferences especially patients recently has been increasingly applied in health care.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the hotspots and trends of the application of DCE in health care and to provide reference and direction for further development of DCE in the future.

Method: A bibliometric method was implemented using the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection for the period from the database established to December 8, 2020. The data files are imported into CiteSpace and Excel to analyze and visualize the annual volume of productive, authors, countries, cited journals, cited articles, and keywords.

Results: A total of 1,811 articles were retrieved, then we read the abstract of each paper one by one, and 1,562 articles were included after screening, with an exponential increase in publication volume. John F. P. Bridges contributed to 40 publications and ranked first, followed by F. Reed Johnson (n = 37), Julie Ratcliffe (n = 36). The majority of the papers were conducted in the United States (n = 513) and the United Kingdom (n = 433). The top three cited journals were “Health Economics” (n = 981), “Value in Health” (n = 893), and “Pharmaceutical Economics” (n = 774), and the top three articles were “Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force,” “Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force,” and “Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.” The research hotspots and trends included “health technology assessment,” “survival,” “preference based measure,” and “health state valuation.”

Conclusion: The size of the literature about DCE studies in health care showed a noticeable increase in the past decade. The application of DCE in health care remains in an early growth phase, and “health technology assessment,” “survival,” “preference based measure,” and “health state valuation” reflected the latest research hotpots and future trends.

Factors Influencing the Adjuvant Therapy Decision: Results of a Real-World Multicenter Data Analysis of 904 Melanoma Patients

Adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT) significantly improved recurrence-free survival. This study investigates the real-world situation of 904 patients from 13 German skin cancer centers with an indication for adjuvant treatment since the approval of adjuvant ICI and TT. From adjusted log-binomial regression models, we estimated relative risks for associations between various influence factors and treatment decisions (adjuvant therapy yes/no, TT vs. ICI in BRAF mutant patients). Of these patients, 76.9% (95% CI 74-80) opted for a systemic adjuvant treatment. The probability of starting an adjuvant treatment was 26% lower in patients >65 years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 68-80). The most common reasons against adjuvant treatment given by patients were age (29.4%, 95% CI 24-38), and fear of adverse events (21.1%, 95% CI 16-28) and impaired quality of life (11.9%, 95% CI 7-16). Of all BRAF-mutated patients who opted for adjuvant treatment, 52.9% (95% CI 47-59) decided for ICI. Treatment decision for TT or ICI was barely associated with age, gender and tumor stage, but with comorbidities and affiliated center. Shortly after their approval, adjuvant treatments have been well accepted by physicians and patients. Age plays a decisive role in the decision for adjuvant treatment, while pre-existing autoimmune disease and regional differences influence the choice between TT or ICI.

Patient preferences for treatment of advanced melanoma: impact of comorbidities

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Choice of treatment for advanced melanoma is crucially influenced by comorbidities and patient preferences. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of comorbidities on preferences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

150 patients with melanoma stage IIC-IV completed a discrete choice experiment to determine preferences for outcome (overall response rate [ORR], 2-year survival, progression-free survival [PFS], time to response [TTR], kind of adverse events [AE], AE-related treatment discontinuation) and process attributes (frequency and route of administration [RoA], frequency of consultations) of systemic melanoma treatments. The impact of comorbidities was assessed by analysis of variance and multivariate regression.

RESULTS

Participants with hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases attached significantly greater importance to TTR and RoA than others. Respondents with arthropathy cared more about TTR (β = 0.179, P = 0.047) and RoA, but less about ORR (β = -0.209, P =  0.021). Individuals with diabetes considered AE (β = 0.185, P = 0.039) and frequency of consultations more essential, but ORR less relevant. Those with other malignancies were particularly worried about treatment discontinuation (β = 0.219, P =  0.008), but less about ORR (β = -0.202, P =  0.015). Participants with depression focused more on PFS (β = 0.201, P =  0.025) and less on TTR (β = -0.201, P =  0.023) and RoA (β = -0.167, P =  0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment preferences of melanoma patients vary significantly dependent on comorbidities.