OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to describe the experiences and perceptions of patients with AML not eligible for standard induction chemotherapy (SIC) with parenteral HMA treatments and to determine their preferences for different characteristics of such treatments.

METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews took place with 21 adults with AML not eligible for SIC from the UK (n=4), Spain (n=2) and Germany (n=15). The interviews focused on their experiences of AML, previous and current HMA treatments, their preferences for receiving an AML HMA treatment orally, subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) administration, and the factors that may influence these preferences.

RESULTS: The majority of patients were above 45 years (67%), female (67%), and White (90%). Most patients (57%) reported receiving oral and SC treatments (38%) as combination treatments. The majority of patients preferred an oral mode of administration (MOA) (71%), compared to patients who preferred IV (14%) and SC (10%). When presented with two hypothetical HMA treatments with similar efficacy and toxicity profiles, the majority of patients preferred oral MOA (76%) compared to the injection MOA (SC or IV) (14%). Two patients were unable to make a treatment decision (10%). Nearly half of patients (48%) mentioned convenience of being able to take the treatment at home as the reason for selecting the oral treatment. Dislike of the clinical environment, the MOA and reduced risk of infection, were also mentioned by 10% of patients. For the injection MOA, more monitoring by a nurse or clinician was mentioned by some patients as the reason for selecting the injection MOA (10%).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AML who are not suitable for SIC showed an overall preference for oral MOA. These findings can support the engagement of patients in treatment decisions for alternative HMA treatment options.