IMPORTANCE OF INTERMEDIATE CLINICAL ENDPOINTS (ICES) IN PROSTATE CANCER (PC) FOR PATIENTS: A CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Valentine Ficara, MSc1, James McCallion, MSc2, Julie Laurent, MSc1, Cynthia Lesbros, PhD1, Lise Radoszycki, MSc1.
1Carenity, Paris, France, 2Johnson & Johnson, Jersey City, NJ, USA.
1Carenity, Paris, France, 2Johnson & Johnson, Jersey City, NJ, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Considering the long-term evolution of PC, ICEs have been studied as potential surrogates for overall survival. To better inform patient-centered care, we assessed the patient relevance of ICEs, specifically metastasis-free survival (MFS), event-free survival (EFS), no evidence of disease (NED), and pathological complete response (pCR), and explored how perceived importance varied by patient characteristics, personal experience with and knowledge of PC.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted via Carenity, an online patient community, between January and May 2025 using a self-administered 30-item questionnaire for patients with PC in China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the US. Patients rated the importance of each ICE on a 0 (“not important at all”) to 10 (“very important”) scale. Patient with similar importance patterns were grouped using hierarchical clustering on principal components. Associations between patient characteristics and importance profiles were examined using multinomial logistic regression (MNL).
RESULTS: Each of the four ICEs were rated as “highly important” (9-10) by at least 76% of 1,219 respondents. We identified three patient groups (average silhouette coefficient = 0.59): one homogenous group rating all ICEs with major importance (n=805), one assigning intermediate importance (n=334) with more diverse scores for MFS and pCR, and one assigning minor importance with high internal variability (n=80). MNL results indicated that patients without personal connections to or knowledge of PC were more likely to assign intermediate or minor importance to ICEs, particularly those who were unaware of the prostate-specific antigen (intermediate OR = 2.46, 95% CI 1.65-3.67; minor OR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.20-9.95).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients view MFS, EFS, NED, and pCR as highly relevant outcomes. This perceived importance was linked to PC knowledge and experience, underscoring the need to incorporate patient understanding when defining meaningful endpoints for PC management.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted via Carenity, an online patient community, between January and May 2025 using a self-administered 30-item questionnaire for patients with PC in China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the US. Patients rated the importance of each ICE on a 0 (“not important at all”) to 10 (“very important”) scale. Patient with similar importance patterns were grouped using hierarchical clustering on principal components. Associations between patient characteristics and importance profiles were examined using multinomial logistic regression (MNL).
RESULTS: Each of the four ICEs were rated as “highly important” (9-10) by at least 76% of 1,219 respondents. We identified three patient groups (average silhouette coefficient = 0.59): one homogenous group rating all ICEs with major importance (n=805), one assigning intermediate importance (n=334) with more diverse scores for MFS and pCR, and one assigning minor importance with high internal variability (n=80). MNL results indicated that patients without personal connections to or knowledge of PC were more likely to assign intermediate or minor importance to ICEs, particularly those who were unaware of the prostate-specific antigen (intermediate OR = 2.46, 95% CI 1.65-3.67; minor OR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.20-9.95).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients view MFS, EFS, NED, and pCR as highly relevant outcomes. This perceived importance was linked to PC knowledge and experience, underscoring the need to incorporate patient understanding when defining meaningful endpoints for PC management.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
CO179
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Relating Intermediate to Long-term Outcomes
Disease
SDC: Oncology, SDC: Urinary/Kidney Disorders