Preferences for Cancer Treatments: A Discrete-Choice Experiment with Adult Patients with Cancer in Europe
Author(s)
Botha W1, Philpott S2, Postmus D3, Pignatti F4, Rodriguez-Leboeuf AM3
1IQVIA, Thornton-Cleveleys, LAN, UK, 2IQVIA, Reading, RDG, UK, 3European Medicines Agency, Netherlands, Netherlands, 4European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient preferences for cancer treatments in Europe.
METHODS: An online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey among adult patients with cancer was conducted in 3 countries: Spain (N=253), Italy (N=250), and Croatia (N=100). Pairs of hypothetical cancer treatments had four attributes with varying levels: time until disease progression (3, 6, 9, and 12 months), treatment administration (oral pill/tablet or non-oral), treatment location (home or hospital/clinic), and impact of side effects on quality of life (QoL) (mild, moderate, or severe). A random-parameters logit model estimated country-specific preferences and assessed the conditional relative importance of each attribute. Swait and Louviere test was subsequently used to assess whether country-specific data could be pooled together. Subgroup and latent class (LC) analyses explored subpopulation preferences.
RESULTS: Mean age across countries was 54 years, 54% had stage I cancer. Approximately 42% were undergoing treatment. Preferences were similar across countries. The impact of side effects on QoL was valued most, then, time until disease progression, treatment administration, and treatment location, respectively. Preferences varied by disease stage, education, and comprehension of the DCE task. LC analysis revealed 3 classes: class 1 valued time until disease progression over the impact of side effects on QoL, class 2 exhibited risk aversion and prioritized the impact of side effects on QoL over time until disease progression, class 3 displayed greater risk aversion and valued the impact of side effects on QoL, over time until disease progression, treatment administration, and treatment location.
CONCLUSIONS: While time until progression is a commonly used endpoint in cancer clinical trials, notably in this study, patients prioritized impacts of side effects on their QoL. The impact of side effects on patients' QoL in cancer clinical trials should be evaluated to better understand the overall benefit-risk profile of cancer treatments and make informed decisions regarding patient care.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 11, S2 (December 2023)
Code
PCR20
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction, Survey Methods
Disease
Oncology