Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Treatment Preferences Among Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

The treatment landscape for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) has evolved quickly with the introduction of immunotherapies as a first-line treatment option. This study examined the preferences of patients with aRCC to better understand the characteristics of preferred treatments and the tradeoffs patients are willing to make when choosing treatment.

Methods and Materials

An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted in the US from May to August 2022 with adult patients with aRCC. A discrete-choice experiment assessed treatment preferences for aRCC. Attributes were identified through literature review and qualitative interviews and included progression-free survival, survival time, objective response rate, duration of response, risk of serious side effects, quality of life (QoL), and treatment regimen.

Results

Survey results from 299 patients with aRCC were analyzed. Patients had a mean age of 55.7 years, were primarily White (50.5%) and were evenly representative of males (49.8%) and females (48.8%). Improvements in all attributes influenced treatment choice. On average, increasing survival time from 10% to 55% was most important, followed by improvements in QoL (ie, from worsens a lot to improves) and improvements to treatment regimen convenience (ie, less frequent infusions). Risk of serious adverse events and increased progression-free time, objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) were of lesser importance.

Conclusion

In this study, patients highlighted that improving survival time was the most important and that QoL is also an important consideration. Discussions during treatment decision-making may benefit from broader conversations around treatment characteristics, including impacts on QoL and convenience of the regimen.

Cross-sectional study of therapy-related expectations/concerns of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and physicians in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To achieve patient-centricity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment, it is essential to clarify the differences in perspectives between patients and physicians. This cross-sectional analysis of a web survey aimed to clarify the differences in expectations and concerns between mRCC patients and physicians regarding systemic mRCC therapy in Japan.

METHODS

Surveys from 83 patients and 165 physicians were analyzed.

RESULTS

The top three most significant differences in expectations of systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient-based physician value) were "Chance of achieving treatment-free status" (-30.1%, p < 0.001), "Longer survival" (+25.8%, p < 0.001), and "Chance of eliminating all evidence of disease" (-25.6%, p < 0.001). The top three most significant differences in concerns for systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient-based physician value) were "Lack of efficacy" (+36.1%, p < 0.001), "Lack of knowledge of treatment" (-28.2%, p < 0.001), and "Daily activities affected by side effects" (+22.3%, p < 0.001). Diarrhea, fatigue/malaise, and nausea/vomiting were patients' most distressing adverse events; 50.6% of patients had difficulty telling their physicians about adverse events such as fatigue, anxiety, and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a gap between patients with mRCC and physicians in their expectations and concerns for systemic therapy. Japanese patients with mRCC suffer from a number of adverse events, some of which are not shared with physicians. This study highlights the importance of communicating well with patients in clinical practice to achieve patient-centricity in systemic treatment for mRCC.

Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Medication in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma in China: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the relative importance of attributes and the willingness to pay for pharmacological therapies among patients with renal cell carcinoma in China.

METHODS

Patients with renal cell carcinoma completed a D-efficient-designed, discrete-choice experiment online survey that presented a series of ten trade-off questions and one examining scenario. Based on the literature review and consultations with patients with renal cell carcinoma and clinicians, each question included a pair of hypothetical renal cell carcinoma medication profiles characterized by seven attributes including progression-free survival, objective response rate, medication regimen, fatigue, gastrointestinal reaction, hand-foot syndrome, and monthly out-of-pocket costs. Relative importance and willingness to pay were calculated using coefficients estimated by mixed logit regression in the main analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted considering the heterogeneity of the participants, based on sex, education level, and income level, using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

The analysis incorporated responses from 182 Chinese respondents. Except for the medication regimen, all attributes were statistically significant. Progression-free survival was the most important attribute, followed by objective response rate, monthly out-of-pocket costs, fatigue, gastrointestinal reaction, and hand-foot syndrome. Patients were willing to pay ￥2010.51 ($298.30), ￥494.93 ($73.43) for 1 unit improvement of progression-free survival, and objective response rate, and￥7558.93 ($1121.50), ￥6927.24 ($1027.78) to avoid experiencing fatigue and gastrointestinal reaction, respectively. Differences in preferences and willingness to pay were found according to patients' gender, income, and education level.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, patients with renal cell carcinoma preferred medications with better efficacy (objective response rate and progression-free survival) and lower out-of-pocket costs. Heterogeneity can be found in preferences and willingness to pay based on patients' gender, income, and education levels.

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.

Preferences for Renal Cell Carcinoma Pharmacological Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients and Oncologists

Introduction

The purpose of this investigation was to explore patients’ and oncologists’ preferences for the characteristics of a pharmacological regimen for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

Material and Methods

Cross-sectional observational study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) conducted in Spain. A literature review, a focus group with oncologists and interviews with patients informed the DCE design. Five attributes were included: progression survival gain, risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), administration mode, and treatment cost. Preferences were analyzed using a mixed-logit model to estimate relative importance (RI) of attributes (importance of an attribute in relation to all others), which was compared between aRCC patients and oncologists treating aRCC. Willingness to pay (WTP, payer: health system) for a benefit in survival or in risk reduction and maximum acceptable risk (MAR) in SAEs for improving survival were estimated from the DCE. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify factors that influence preference.

Results

A total of 105 patients with aRCC (77.1% male, mean age 65.9 years [SD: 10.4], mean time since RCC diagnosis 6.3 years [SD: 6.1]) and 67 oncologists (52.2% male, mean age 41.9 years [SD: 8.4], mean duration of experience in RCC 10.2 years [SD: 7.5]) participated in the study. The most important attribute for patients and oncologists was survival gain (RI: 43.6% vs. 54.7% respectively, p<0.05), followed by HRQoL (RI: 35.5% vs. 18.0%, respectively, p<0.05). MAR for SAEs was higher among oncologists than patients, while WTP (for the health system) was higher for patients. Differences in preferences were found according to time since diagnosis and education level (patients) or length of professional experience (oncologists).

Conclusion

Patients’ and oncologists’ preferences for aRCC treatment are determined mainly by the efficacy (survival gain) but also by the HRQoL provided. The results of the study can help to inform decision-making in the selection of appropriate aRCC treatment.

Treatment-free Survival after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy versus Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 42-Month Results of the CheckMate 214 Trial

PURPOSE

Patients discontinuing immuno-oncology regimens may experience periods of disease control without need for ongoing anticancer therapy, but toxicity may persist. We describe treatment-free survival (TFS), with and without toxicity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were analyzed from the randomized phase III CheckMate 214 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 550) versus sunitinib (n = 546) for treatment-naïve, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). TFS was estimated by the 42-month restricted mean times defined by the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints defined from randomization: time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was subdivided as TFS with and without toxicity by counting days with ≥1 grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE).

RESULTS

At 42 months since randomization, 52% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 39% of sunitinib intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive; 18% and 5% surviving treatment-free, respectively. Among favorable-risk patients, 70% and 73% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and sunitinib patients were alive; 20% and 9% treatment-free. Over the 42-month period, mean TFS was over twice as long after nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk (6.9 vs. 3.1 months) and three times as long for favorable-risk patients (11.0 vs. 3.7 months). Mean TFS with grade ≥3 TRAEs was a small proportion of time for both treatments (0.6 vs. 0.3 months after nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 months for favorable-risk patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for aRCC spent more survival time treatment-free without toxicity versus those on sunitinib, regardless of risk group.

Patient Preferences for Outcomes Following DCIS Management Strategies: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a nonobligate precursor of breast cancer, is often aggressively managed with multimodal therapy. However, there is limited research on patients' preferences for trade-offs among treatment-related outcomes such as breast appearance, side effects, and future cancer risk. We sought to investigate whether women consider treatment features aside from cancer risk when making treatment choices for ductal carcinoma in situ and if so, to what degree other features influence these decisions.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was administered to participants in a comprehensive cancer screening mammography clinic. The experimental design was used to generate constructed health profiles resulting from different management strategies. Health profiles were defined by breast appearance, severity of infection within the first year, chronic pain, hot flashes, and risk of developing or dying from breast cancer within 10 years.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four women without a personal history of breast cancer completed the choice task. Across 10 choice questions, 29% always selected the health profile with a lower risk of invasive breast cancer (ie, dominated on cancer risk), regardless of the effects of treatment. For nonrisk dominators, breast cancer risk remained the most important factor but was closely followed by chronic pain (24% [95% CI, 20 to 28]) and infection (22% [95% CI, 18 to 25]). Depending on treatment outcomes, the tolerable increase in breast cancer risk was as high as 3.4%.

CONCLUSION

Most women were willing to make some trade-offs between invasive cancer risk and treatment-related outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of shared decision-making weighing risks and benefits between patient and provider management of low-risk 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.

A multi-stakeholder approach in optimising patients' needs in the benefit assessment process of new metastatic breast cancer treatments

There is a growing understanding as science evolves that different cancer types require different approaches to treatment evaluation, especially in the metastatic stages. The introduction of new metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatments may be hindered by several elements, including the availability of relevant evidence related to disease-specific outcomes, the benefit assessment process around the evaluation of the clinical benefit and the patients' need of new treatments. The Steering Committee (SC) found that not all issues relevant to MBC patients are consistently considered in the current benefit assessment process of new treatments. Among these are overall survival, time-to-event endpoints (e.g. progression-free survival), patients' priorities, burden of disease, MBC-specific quality of life, value in delaying chemotherapy, route of administration, side effects and toxicities, treatment adherence and the benefit of real-world evidence. This paper calls on decision makers to (1) Include MBC-specific patient priorities and outcomes in the overall benefit assessments of new MBC treatments; (2) Enhance multi-stakeholder collaboration in order to improve MBC patient outcomes.

Physician preferences for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Recent approvals of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs) have changed the treatment landscape for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). These SGARIs have similar efficacy but differ in safety profiles. We used a discrete choice experiment to explore how United States physicians make treatment decisions between adverse events (AEs) and survival gains in nmCRPC, a largely asymptomatic disease.

METHODS

Treating physicians (n = 149) participated in an online survey that included 14 treatment choice questions, each comparing 2 hypothetical treatment profiles, which varied in terms of 5 safety and 2 efficacy attributes. We described safety attributes (fatigue, skin rash, cognitive problems, falls, and fractures) in terms of severity and frequency, and efficacy attributes (overall survival [OS] and time to pain progression) in terms of duration of effect. We used a random parameters logit model to estimate preference weights and importance scores for each attribute. We also estimated the amount of survival gain physicians were willing to trade for a reduction in specific AEs between treatment options.

RESULTS

Physicians placed more importance on survival than on time to pain progression, and viewed a reduction in cognitive problems from severe to none, a reduction in risk of a serious fracture from 8% to none, and a reduction in fatigue from severe to none as the most important safety attributes. Physicians were willing to forego 9.1 and 6.6 months of OS, respectively, to reduce cognitive problems and fatigue from severe to mild-to-moderate. To reduce the risk of a serious fracture from 8 to 5% and 5% to none, physicians were willing to trade 3.9 and 5.3 months of OS, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians were willing to trade substantial amounts of survival to avoid AEs between hypothetical treatments. These results emphasize the importance of carefully balancing therapies' benefits and risks to ultimately optimize the overall quality of nmCRPC patients' survival. Nonetheless, it is noted that the results from the study sample of 149 physicans may not be representative of the viewpoints of all nmCRPC-treating physicians.

The Value of Hope: Patients' and Physicians' Preferences for Survival in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Immuno-oncology treatments offer patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment options with greater probability of durable survival and a different toxicity profile compared with traditional chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to explore the importance of increases in the probability of long-term survival versus changes in expected (median) survival and treatment toxicities among patients with advanced NSCLC and physicians.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a discrete-choice experiment, oncologists and patients diagnosed with NSCLC chose between profiles of treatments for advanced NSCLC offering different combinations of benefits (expected, best-case, and worst-case survival) and risks. We analyzed preference data from each sample using a random-parameters logit model that controls for preference heterogeneity and the panel nature of the data.

RESULTS

Both patients and physicians expressed a strong preference for improving the probability of best-case survival; however, patients viewed increases in the probability of long-term survival as more important than increases in expected survival, while the opposite was true for physicians. Both patients and physicians weighted survival to be more important than toxicities.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a potentially important divergence between physician and patient perspectives on survival statistics. Physicians placed more importance on increases in expected survival than did patients with NSCLC. The importance patients placed on long-term survival reinforce previous research identifying the primacy of hope as a value among seriously ill patients. The findings underscore the importance of considering patients' priorities and in shared decision-making when choosing treatment.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival as a Treatment End Point Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of the Literature

IMPORTANCE

It is unclear whether patients with advanced cancer value surrogate end points, particularly progression-free survival (PFS). Despite this uncertainty, surrogate end points form the basis of regulatory approval for the majority of new cancer treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and qualitatively assess studies evaluating whether patients with advanced cancer understand and value PFS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from database inception to November 12, 2018. Articles eligible for inclusion investigated patient understanding, preference, or perceived value of disease progression or PFS in the setting of advanced cancer. Three authors independently reviewed and extracted data from all studies eligible for inclusion.

FINDINGS

In total, 17 studies representing 3646 patients were included. Of these studies, 15 specifically aimed to assess patients' values toward, and their willingness to trade off toxic effects for gains or losses in the end point of PFS. All studies examined used widely disparate definitions when attempting to describe the meaning of PFS to patients. Ten studies specifically presented patients with the term progression-free survival as an attribute choice. In the words used to define the attribute of PFS, 6 studies used the term survival. Five studies clarified that PFS may not translate into better overall survival, and 5 studies explained that improvements in PFS may not reflect how well the patient may feel. No study clarified that a PFS event could represent either progression or death, and no study defined for the patient what constituted progression. The studies assessed herein underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities (mean percentage of white patients, 88%; range, 77%-96%). Values and preferences may vary across cultural backgrounds given that different relative preferences were assigned to cost and efficacy outcomes in North American vs Asian studies, although only a few studies were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The existing literature evaluating patients' understanding, preferences, and values toward the end point of PFS was severely limited by the heterogeneity of methods, attribute selection, and descriptions used to define PFS to patients. High-quality studies are needed that clearly define PFS for patients and that systematically document their understanding of the term. Only then can it be assessed whether PFS is an end point of value to patients with advanced cancer.

Comparative Survival Associated With Use of Targeted vs Nontargeted Therapy in Medicare Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have shown increased tolerability and survival advantages over older treatments in clinical trials, but understanding of real-world survival improvements is still emerging.

OBJECTIVE

To compare overall and RCC-specific survival associated with use of targeted vs nontargeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from 2000 to 2013 to examine patients with stage IV (distant) clear cell RCC at the time of diagnosis who received any targeted or nontargeted therapy. A 2-stage residual inclusion model was fitted to estimate the survival advantages of targeted treatments using an instrumental variable approach to account for both measured and unmeasured group differences. Data analyses were conducted from July 24, 2017, to April 4, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Targeted therapy (study group) or nontargeted therapy (control group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall survival and RCC-specific survival, defined as the interval between the date of first drug treatment and date of death or end of the observation period.

RESULTS

The final sample included 1015 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [8.1] years; 392 [39%] women); 374 (37%) received nontargeted therapy and 641 (63%) received targeted therapy. The targeted therapy group had a greater percentage of disabled patients (ie, those <65 years old who were eligible for Medicare because of disability) and older patients (ie, those ≥75 years old) and higher comorbidity index and disability scores compared with the nontargeted therapy group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed higher overall survival for targeted vs nontargeted therapy (log-rank test, χ21 = 5.79; P = .02); median survival was not statistically significantly different (8.7 months [95% CI, 7.3-10.2 months] vs 7.2 months [95% CI, 5.8-8.8 months]; P = .14). According to the instrumental variable analysis, the median overall survival advantage was 3.0 months (95% CI, 0.7-5.3 months), and overall survival improvements associated with targeted therapy vs nontargeted therapy were statistically significant: 8% at 1 year (44% [95% CI, 39%-50%] vs 36% [95% CI, 30%-42%]; P = .01), 7% at 2 years (25% [95% CI, 20%-30%] vs 18% [95% CI, 13%-23%]; P = .009), and 5% at 3 years (15% [95% CI, 11%-19%] vs 10% [95% CI, 6%-13%]; P = .01). Receipt of targeted therapy was associated with a lower hazard of death compared with nontargeted therapy (overall survival hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.94]; RCC-specific survival hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Targeted therapies were associated with modest survival advantages despite a treatment group with more medical complexity, likely reflecting appropriateness for an expanded population of patients. As advances in cancer treatment continue, rigorous methods that account for unobserved confounders will be needed to evaluate their real-world impact on outcomes.

Comparing the Relative Importance of Attributes of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatments to Patients and Physicians in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

Value assessments of new treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should include outcomes that are most important to patients. This study aimed to quantify and compare the conditional relative importance of the attributes of RCC treatments to patients and physicians in the United States.

METHODS

Patients with RCC and physicians who treat RCC completed an online discrete-choice experiment survey with a fractional factorial D-optimal experimental design. In a series of 12 questions, respondents chose between two hypothetical treatments defined in terms of six attributes: progression-free survival (PFS), probability of living ≥ 3 years (PL3Y), skin reactions, severity of fatigue, mode of administration, and monthly co-payment. Treatment choices were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model to estimate relative preference weights for the attribute levels and conditional relative attribute importance (i.e. the importance of an attribute relative to all other attributes conditional on the range of levels of that attribute).

RESULTS

Overall, 201 patients and 142 physicians completed the survey. For both patients and physicians, PL3Y was the attribute with the greatest and statistically significant conditional relative importance. Estimates of the conditional relative importance of PFS, skin reactions, and mode of administration for patients, and for PFS and mode of administration for physicians, were not statistically significant. The preferences for improvements in PFS were independent of the level of PL3Y for both patients and physicians. Conditional relative attribute importance varied by patient disease stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and physicians indicated that PL3Y was the most important treatment attribute and was significantly more important than PFS. Importance rankings differed between physicians and patients and between all patients and those with advanced/metastatic disease.

Safety of pazopanib and sunitinib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ trial

Background

The international, phase 3 COMPARZ study demonstrated that pazopanib and sunitinib have comparable efficacy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, but that safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. Our report analyzed pazopanib and sunitinib safety in Asian and non-Asian subpopulations.

Methods

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily (continuous dosing) or sunitinib 50 mg once daily in 6-week cycles (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off).

Results

Safety population was composed of 363 Asian patients and 703 non-Asian patients. Asian patients had similar duration of exposure to either drug compared with non-Asian patients, although Asian patients had a higher frequency of dose modifications. Overall, hematologic toxicities, cytopenias, increased AST/ALT, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) were more prevalent in Asian patients, whereas gastrointestinal toxicities were more prevalent in non-Asian patients. Among Asian patients, hematologic adverse events and most non-hematologic AEs were more common in sunitinib-treated versus pazopanib-treated patients. Among Asian patients, the most common grade 3/4 AEs with pazopanib were hypertension (grade 3, 22%) and alanine aminotransferase increased (grade 3, 12%; grade 4, 1%); the most common grade 3/4 AEs with sunitinib were thrombocytopenia/platelet count decreased (grade 3, 36%; grade 4, 10%), neutropenia/neutrophil count decreased (grade 3, 24%; grade 4, 3%) hypertension (grade 3, 20%), and PPE (grade 3, 15%).

Conclusions

A distinct pattern and severity of adverse events was observed in Asians when compared with non-Asians with both pazopanib and sunitinib. However, the two drugs were well tolerated in both subpopulations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00720941, Registered July 22, 2008

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01147822, Registered June 22, 2010

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13045-018-0617-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Phase II Study of Two Weeks on, One Week off Sunitinib Scheduling in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose Standard frontline treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma currently includes sunitinib. A barrier to long-term treatment with sunitinib includes the development of significant adverse effects, including diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and fatigue. This trial assessed the effect of an alternate 2 weeks on, 1 week off (2/1) schedule of sunitinib on toxicity and efficacy in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods Patients started with oral administration of 50 mg sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule and underwent schedule and dose alterations if toxicity developed. The primary end point was < 15% grade ≥ 3 fatigue, diarrhea, or HFS. With 60 patients, the upper bound of the CI would fall below the published 4/2 schedule grade ≥ 3 toxicity rate of 25% to 30%. Results Fifty-nine patients were treated between August 2014 and March 2016. Seventy-seven percent were intermediate or poor risk per Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. With a median follow-up of 17 months, 25% of patients experienced grade 3 fatigue, HFS, or diarrhea; 37% required a dose reduction, and 10% discontinued because of toxicity. The overall response rate was 57%, median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and median overall survival was not reached. At 12 weeks, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores dropped between 0% and 10% from baseline, with less reduction in patients who continued treatment longer. Conclusion The primary end point of decreased grade 3 toxicity was not met; however, treatment with a 2/1 sunitinib schedule is associated with a lack of grade 4 toxicity, a low patient discontinuation rate, and high efficacy.

Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

INTRODUCTION

As several studies have been conducted to elicit patients' preferences for cancer treatment, it is important to provide an overview and synthesis of these studies. This study aimed to systematically review discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about patients' preferences for cancer treatment and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all DCEs investigating patients' preferences for cancer treatment between January 2010 and April 2016. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and a reporting quality assessment was applied to all studies. Attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes, and their relative importance was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 28 DCEs were identified. More than half of the studies (56%) received an aggregate score lower than 4 on the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) 5-point scale. Most attributes were related to outcome (70%), followed by process (25%) and cost (5%). Outcome attributes were most often significant (81%), followed by process (73%) and cost (67%). The relative importance of outcome attributes was ranked highest in 82% of the cases where it was included, followed by cost (43%) and process (12%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that attributes related to cancer treatment outcomes are the most important for patients. Process and cost attributes were less often included in studies but were still (but less) important to patients in most studies. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware that attribute importance might be influenced by level selection for that attribute.

Patient and physician preferences for anticancer drugs for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a discrete-choice experiment

Objective

Many publications describe preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; however, few studies elicited preferences for anticancer-drug treatment for metastatic CRC (mCRC). This study was designed to elicit preferences and risk tolerance among patients and oncologists in the USA for anticancer drugs to treat mCRC.

Materials and methods

Patients aged 18 years or older with a self-reported diagnosis of mCRC and board-certified (or equivalent) oncologists who had treated patients with mCRC were recruited by two survey research companies from existing online patient panels in the USA. Additional oncologists were recruited from a list of US physicians. Patients and oncologists completed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey. DCEs offer a systematic method of eliciting preferences and quantifying both the relative importance of treatment attributes and the tradeoffs respondents are willing to make among benefits and risks. Treatment attributes in the DCE were progression-free survival (PFS) and risks of severe papulopustular rash, serious hemorrhage, cardiopulmonary arrest, and gastrointestinal perforation. Patients’ and physicians’ maximum levels of acceptable treatment-related risks for two prespecified increases in efficacy were estimated.

Results

A total of 127 patients and 150 oncologists completed the survey. Relative preferences for the treatment attributes in the study were mostly consistent with the expectation that better clinical outcomes were preferred over worse clinical outcomes. Risk tolerance varied between patients and physicians. On average, physicians were willing to tolerate higher risks than patients, although these differences were mostly not statistically significant. Post hoc latent-class analyses revealed that some patients and physicians were unwilling to forgo any efficacy to avoid toxicities, while others were willing to make such tradeoffs.

Conclusion

Differences in preferences between patients and physicians suggest that there is the potential for improvement in patients’ well-being. Initiating or enhancing discussions about patient tolerance for toxicities, such as skin rash and gastrointestinal perforations, may help prescribe treatments that entail more appropriate benefit–risk tradeoffs.

Patient preferences for treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan: a discrete-choice experiment

Background

Up to a fifth of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), which has been associated with a poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to consider the patient perspective as part of the overall treatment decision-making process for CRPC, given that an alignment between patient preference and prescribing has been shown to benefit patient outcomes. This study examines preferences of patients with CRPC in Japan for treatment features associated with treatments like RA-223, abiraterone, and docetaxel and to examine the extent to which treatment preferences may vary between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

Methods

A two-phase research approach was implemented. In Phase 1, N = 8 patients with CRPC were recruited from a single hospital to complete a qualitative interview to provide feedback on the draft survey. In Phase 2, N = 134 patients with CRPC were recruited from five hospitals to complete a paper survey. The survey included 6 treatment choice questions, each asking patients to choose between two hypothetical treatments for their CRPC. Each treatment alternative was defined by the following attributes: length of overall survival (OS), time to a symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), method of administration, reduction in the risk of bone pain, treatment-associated risk of fatigue and lost work days. A hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute level and mean relative importance.

Results

A total of N = 133 patients with CRPC completed the survey and were included in the final analysis. Patients had a mean age of 75.4 years (SD = 7.4) and had been diagnosed with PC a mean of 6.5 years prior (SD = 4.4). Over the attribute levels shown, fatigue (relative importance [RI] = 24.9 %, 95 % CI: 24.7 %, 25.1 %) was the most important attribute, followed by reduction in the risk of bone pain (RI = 23.2 %, 95 % CI: 23.0 %, 23.5 %), and OS (RI = 19.2 %, 95 % CI: 19.0 %, 19.4 %). Although symptomatic patients placed significantly more importance on delaying an SSE (p < .05), no other preference differences were observed.

Conclusions

CRPC patients were more concerned about reduced quality of life from side effects of treatment rather than extension of survival, which may have implications for shared decision-making between patients and physicians.

The effect of information on preferences for treatments of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Limited information exists regarding the effect of uncertainty in outcomes on patient preferences for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatments. This study tested the effect on patients' preferences and willingness to tolerate toxicities when patients were provided with information about possible correlations between treatment-related toxicities and efficacy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with self-reported RCC diagnosis completed an online survey. Respondents were randomly assigned to the information treatment (i.e. information about the possible correlation). Medicines were defined by progression-free survival (PFS), three toxicities potentially correlated with PFS, and one toxicity uncorrelated with PFS. Direct-elicitation questions measured willingness to tolerate the toxicities, preferences for medicines with higher toxicity but a higher chance of longer PFS, and preferences for medicines with higher toxicity during treatment and a 2 week dosing schedule break. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) tested the effect of information on relative preferences for medication attributes.

RESULTS

A total of 378 RCC patients completed the survey. Respondents who received the information reported greater willingness to accept more severe toxicities and preferred treatment with a higher chance of longer PFS but more severe toxicities. The DCE results were consistent with the hypothesis that the information increased willingness to tolerate toxicities; however, the results were only statistically significant for changes in fatigue (none to severe; p < 0.05) and hypertension (none to manageable; p < 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

Online recruitment through patient support groups may limit generalizability to the population of patients with mRCC who would be candidates for the targeted therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that RCC patients have diverse preferences but may be willing to continue targeted therapies, even in the presence of severe toxicities, if there is a chance of improved clinical benefit. Physicians should provide patients with comprehensive information about medication features, including toxicities and efficacy (and their potential correlation), to improve compliance and optimize outcomes.

Pazopanib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Pazopanib is an orally available multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (a class of targeted therapies) that inhibits tumor angiogenesis and cell proliferation. The safety and efficacy of pazopanib (noninferior to sunitinib for progression-free survival) in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated in several clinical trials. However, in addition to therapeutic efficacy, treatment choices should also take into account health-related quality of life (HRQoL) aspects of cancer therapy. Here, we summarize the HRQoL findings related to pazopanib use, based on patient-reported outcome measures; pazopanib has been shown to be superior to sunitinib on several HRQoL domains (including patient preference). A further consideration for treatment choice is how well the findings from clinical trials correlate with evidence from general clinical practice. This review therefore includes descriptions of real-world experience of pazopanib use in the treatment of patients with mRCC, following its approval by medical regulatory authorities in a number of countries. Naturalistic observational studies demonstrate that the efficacy of pazopanib in patients with mRCC is consistent with clinical trial findings. Similarly, consistent results were observed for the safety profile of pazopanib between observational studies and clinical trials, with most treatment-associated adverse events being mild to moderate in severity, and manageable.

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity analysis of pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In a phase 3, randomized, open-label trial (Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma, COMPARZ; NCT00720941), pazopanib was found to be noninferior to sunitinib in terms of progression-free survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with no prior therapy. Overall treatment differences were evaluated in a post hoc analysis with a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) methodology.

METHODS

Each patient's overall survival was partitioned into 3 mutually exclusive health states: time with grade 3 or 4 toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms of disease or grade 3/4 toxicity of treatment, and time after tumor progression or relapse (REL). The time spent in each state was weighted by a health-state utility associated with that state and summed to calculate the Q-TWiST. A threshold utility analysis was used, and utilities were applied across the range of 0 (similar to death) to 1 (perfect health).

RESULTS

A total of 1110 patients were enrolled (557 on pazopanib and 553 on sunitinib). The mean TOX was 31 days (95% confidence interval, 13-48 days) longer for sunitinib versus pazopanib. In the threshold utility analysis, the difference in the Q-TWiST ranged from -11 days (utility for TOX, 1; utility for REL, 0) to 43 days (utility for TOX, 0; utility for REL, 1) in favor of pazopanib across most utility combinations. Differences were significant in less than half of the utility combinations examined, and this typically occurred when the utility for TOX was lower than the utility for REL.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients randomized to pazopanib had a slightly longer Q-TWiST in comparison with sunitinib patients, and this was primarily due to the reduced length of TOX.

Preference for pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes

PURPOSE

Pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes, such as dose frequency and route of administration, can have an impact on quality of life, treatment adherence, and disease outcomes. The aim of this literature review was to examine studies on preferences for pharmaceutical treatment process attributes, focusing on research in diabetes, oncology, osteoporosis, and autoimmune disorders.

METHODS

The literature search focused on identifying studies reporting preferences for attributes of the pharmaceutical treatment process. Studies were required to use formal quantitative preference assessment methods, such as utility valuation, conjoint analysis, or contingent valuation. Searches were conducted using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Economic Evaluation Database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (January 1993-October 2013).

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies met inclusion criteria: 19 diabetes, nine oncology, five osteoporosis, and nine autoimmune. Across these conditions, treatments associated with shorter treatment duration, less frequent administration, greater flexibility, and less invasive routes of administration were preferred over more burdensome or complex treatments. While efficacy and safety often had greater relative importance than treatment process, treatment process also had a quantifiable impact on preference. In some instances, particularly in diabetes and autoimmune disorders, treatment process attributes had greater relative importance than some or all efficacy and safety attributes. Some studies suggested that relative importance of treatment process depends on disease (eg, acute vs chronic) and patient (eg, injection experience) characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Despite heterogeneity in study methods and design, some general patterns of preference clearly emerged. Overall, the results of this review suggest that treatment process has a quantifiable impact on preference and willingness to pay for treatment, even in many situations where safety and efficacy were the primary concerns. Patient preferences for treatment process attributes can inform drug development decisions to better meet the needs of patients and deliver improved outcomes.

Patient Benefit-Risk Tradeoffs for Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Treatments

Background. The aims of this study were to assess patients' preferences to wait or start systemic treatment and understand how patients would make tradeoffs between certain severe adverse events (AEs) and additional months of progression-free survival (PFS). Materials and Methods. Adults in France, Germany, and Spain with a diagnosis of DTC and who have had at least one RAI treatment completed a direct-elicitation question and a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) online. The direct-elicitation question asked respondents whether they would opt out of treatment when their tumor is RAI-R. In the DCE, respondents chose between 12 pairs of hypothetical RAI-R DTC treatment profiles. Profiles were defined by magnitudes of efficacy (PFS) and safety (severe hand-foot skin reaction [HFSR], severe proteinuria, and severe hypertension). A main-effects random-parameters logit model was estimated. Results. 134 patients completed the survey. Most patients (86.6%) opted for treatment rather than “wait and see” decision. Patients placed a greater weight on the risk of severe hypertension than the risk of proteinuria and HFSR. Conclusions. DTC patients showed preference toward treatment for RAI-R DTC over watchful waiting. Patients' concerns about the risk of severe hypertension appeared to have had a greater effect on patients' choice than severe proteinuria or HFSR.

Bayesian Group Sequential Clinical Trial Design using Total Toxicity Burden and Progression-Free Survival

Delivering radiation to eradicate a solid tumor while minimizing damage to nearby critical organs remains a challenge. For esophageal cancer, radiation therapy may damage the heart or lungs, and several qualitatively different, possibly recurrent toxicities associated with chemoradiation or surgery may occur, each at two or more possible grades. In this article, we describe a Bayesian group sequential clinical trial design, based on total toxicity burden (TTB) and progression-free survival duration, for comparing two radiation therapy modalities for esophageal cancer. Each patient's toxicities are modeled as a multivariate doubly stochastic Poisson point process, with marks identifying toxicity grades. Each grade of each type of toxicity is assigned a severity weight, elicited from clinical oncologists familiar with the disease and treatments. TTB is defined as a severity-weighted sum over the different toxicities that may occur up to 12 months from the start of treatment. Latent frailties are used to formulate a multivariate model for all outcomes. Group sequential decision rules are based on posterior mean TTB and progression-free survival time. The proposed design is shown to provide both larger power and smaller mean sample size when compared to a conventional bivariate group sequential design.

Validation of a short questionnaire to measure symptoms and functional limitations associated with hand-foot syndrome and mucositis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hand-foot syndrome and mucositis/stomatitis are frequent adverse events (AEs) of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer therapy. Quality-of-life instruments that measure the functional consequences of these AEs are needed to assess the impact of therapeutic interventions and to guide patient care. The Hand-Foot and Mucositis Symptom and Impact Questionnaire (HAMSIQ [formerly the Supplementary Quality of Life Questionnaire]) was used in the COMPARZ trial (Pazopanib vs Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma [national clinical trial no. NCT00720941]) and the PISCES study (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib vs Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer [clinicaltrials.gov NCT01064310]) to assess mouth/throat and hand/foot soreness symptoms and subsequent limitations in patients receiving pazopanib or sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The objective of the current analysis was to validate the HAMSIQ using data from the PISCES study.

METHODS

The HAMSIQ was administered in the PISCES study at baseline and every 2 weeks over two 10-week periods to patients who were receiving pazopanib or sunitinib. Data from the first 10-week period were used to assess the feasibility, validity, and responsiveness of the HAMSIQ.

RESULTS

In total, ≥85% of 169 patients completed the HAMSIQ (excluding the item concerning days off work). Correlations among items within the same limitation subscale generally were high (Cronbach α ≥ .80). HAMSIQ limitation scores differentiated patients according to their baseline performance status and severity of soreness. Small-to-moderate correlations were observed for the symptoms/limitation scores and for changes from baseline scores between the HAMSIQ and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy fatigue survey. The HAMSIQ demonstrated responsiveness to changes in clinical status and the development of hand-foot syndrome AEs over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The HAMSIQ is a feasible, valid, reliable, and responsive instrument for assessing the impact of hand-foot syndrome and mucositis in patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cancer 2016;122:287-295. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Alternate sunitinib schedules in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sunitinib malate is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor exhibiting antiangiogenic activity. Sunitinib demonstrated improved outcomes in comparison to interferon-α in a large phase III study of treatment naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Maintaining patients on sunitinib treatment is essential for a sustained disease control as higher exposure to sunitinib has been associated with an improved overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Various studies have compared the outcomes of patients undergoing sunitinib therapy based on modifications from their standard dose and schedule. Several studies have shown that switching to an alternate schedule with more frequent dose interruptions without affecting dose density over a 6-week cycle is associated with improved outcomes and increased tolerability.

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.

METHODS

This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.

RESULTS

A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

'Being there' for women with metastatic breast cancer: a pan-European patient survey

BACKGROUND

Understanding their experiences of diagnosis is integral to improving the quality of care for women living with advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

A survey, initiated in March 2011, was conducted in two stages. First, the views of 47 breast cancer-related patient groups in eight European countries were sought on standards of breast cancer care and unmet needs of patients. Findings were used to develop a patient-centric survey to capture personal experiences of advanced breast cancer to determine insights into the 'trade-off' between extending overall survival and side effects associated with its treatment. The second online survey was open to women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, or their carers, and responders were recruited through local patient groups. Data were collected via anonymous local language questionnaires.

RESULTS

The online stage II survey received a total of 230 responses from 17 European countries: 94% of respondents had locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and 6% were adult carers. Although the overall experience of care was generally good/excellent (77%), gaps were still perceived in terms of treatment choice and information provision. Treatment choice for patients was felt to be lacking by 32% of responders. In addition, 68% of those who responded would have liked more information about future medical treatments and research, with 57% wishing to receive this information from their oncologist. Two-thirds (66%) of women with advanced breast cancer, or their carers, believed life-extending treatment to be important so that they can spend more time with family and friends, and 67% said that the treatment was worthwhile, despite potential associated side effects.

CONCLUSION

These findings show a continuing need to provide women with advanced breast cancer with better information and emphasise the importance that these patients often place on prolonging survival.

Small molecule targeted therapies for the second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and indirect comparison of safety and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and a good performance status typically receive an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) TKI (sunitinib or pazopanib) as initial therapy. Upon disease progression or intolerance, there are four orally administered agents approved in the second-line setting (including cytokine-refractory). However, head-to-head comparative trial data are limited. In this study, an indirect statistical comparison of safety and efficacy was undertaken between axitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib and everolimus in second-line therapy mRCC.

METHODS

A systematic review of major databases was conducted from January 2005 to June 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one of the four agents in second-line mRCC. Bayesian mixed treatment comparison models were fitted to assess relative effectiveness on multiple endpoints such as objective response rates, dose-limiting grade III/IV toxicities, treatment discontinuations and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. All four agents seem able to induce tumor shrinkage and to provide patients with a clinically meaningful PFS benefit. Axitinib was superior to pazopanib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64; 95 % credible interval (95 % Crl) 0.42-0.96] and sorafenib (HR 0.70; 95 % Crl 0.57-0.87) in terms of PFS. However, axitinib was associated with an elevated risk of fatigue and to a lesser extent stomatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Keeping in mind the caveats associated with cross-trial statistical comparisons, axitinib provides superior PFS relative to pazopanib and sorafenib. Everolimus, an mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, is mechanistically distinct from the other agents and remains a useful option for patient's post-anti-VEGFR TKI failure.

Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pazopanib and sunitinib provided a progression-free survival benefit, as compared with placebo or interferon, in previous phase 3 studies involving patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of pazopanib and sunitinib as first-line therapy.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1110 patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily; 557 patients) or sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment; 553 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent review, and the study was powered to show the noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, <1.25). Overall survival was similar (hazard ratio for death with pazopanib, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.08). Patients treated with sunitinib, as compared with those treated with pazopanib, had a higher incidence of fatigue (63% vs. 55%), the hand-foot syndrome (50% vs. 29%), and thrombocytopenia (78% vs. 41%); patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of increased levels of alanine aminotransferase (60%, vs. 43% with sunitinib). The mean change from baseline in 11 of 14 health-related quality-of-life domains, particularly those related to fatigue or soreness in the mouth, throat, hands, or feet, during the first 6 months of treatment favored pazopanib (P<0.05 for all 11 comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.).

Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature

Decisions regarding the development, regulation, sale, and utilization of pharmaceutical and medical interventions require an evaluation of the balance between benefits and risks. Such evaluations are subject to two fundamental challenges-measuring the clinical effectiveness and harms associated with the treatment, and determining the relative importance of these different types of outcomes. In some ways, determining the willingness to accept treatment-related risks in exchange for treatment benefits is the greater challenge because it involves the individual subjective judgments of many decision makers, and these decision makers may draw different conclusions about the optimal balance between benefits and risks. In response to increasing demand for benefit-risk evaluations, researchers have applied a variety of existing welfare-theoretic preference methods for quantifying the tradeoffs decision makers are willing to accept among expected clinical benefits and risks. The methods used to elicit benefit-risk preferences have evolved from different theoretical backgrounds. To provide some structure to the literature that accommodates the range of approaches, we begin by describing a welfare-theoretic conceptual framework underlying the measurement of benefit-risk preferences in pharmaceutical and medical treatment decisions. We then review the major benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods in the empirical literature and provide a brief overview of the studies using each of these methods. The benefit-risk preference methods described in this overview fall into two broad categories: direct-elicitation methods and conjoint analysis. Rating scales (6 studies), threshold techniques (9 studies), and standard gamble (2 studies) are examples of direct elicitation methods. Conjoint analysis studies are categorized by the question format used in the study, including ranking (1 study), graded pairs (1 study), and discrete choice (21 studies). The number of studies reviewed here demonstrates that this body of research already is substantial, and it appears that the number of benefit-risk preference studies in the literature will continue to increase. In addition, benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods have been applied to a variety of healthcare decisions and medical interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, surgical and medical procedures, and diagnostics, as well as resource-allocation decisions such as facility placement. While preference-elicitation approaches may differ across studies, all of the studies described in this review can be used to provide quantitative measures of the tradeoffs patients and other decision makers are willing to make between benefits and risks of medical interventions. Eliciting and quantifying the preferences of decision makers allows for a formal, evidence-based consideration of decision-makers' values that currently is lacking in regulatory decision making. Future research in this area should focus on two primary issues-developing best-practice standards for preference-elicitation studies and developing methods for combining stated preferences and clinical data in a manner that is both understandable and useful to regulatory agencies.