OBJECTIVES: To quantify patients’ benefit-risk preferences for benefits, toxicities, and serious adverse events of advanced RCC treatments.    METHODS: Adult residents in the United States, with a self-reported diagnosis of RCC completed a web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey consisting of a series of 10 treatment-choice questions, and a pair of hypothetical RCC medication profiles. Each profile had different attributes, i.e., efficacy [PFS], tolerability [fatigue, stomach problems, mouth sores, hand-foot syndrome (HFS)], serious adverse events (lung damage and liver failure), and mode of administration. Treatment-choice questions were based on a predetermined experimental design with known statistical properties. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute level, mean relative importance weights; and calculate risk tolerance for each adverse event for different improvements in PFS.  RESULTS:  A total of 272 respondents completed the survey. A 7-month improvement in PFS was the most important attribute. Remaining attributes were ranked in decreasing order of importance: eliminating severe fatigue (7.0; 95% CI: 4.6-9.4), eliminating severe stomach problems (7.0; 95% CI: 4.7-9.3), eliminating a 2% liver-failure risk (6.1; 95% CI: 4.0-8.2), eliminating severe mouth sores (5.7; 95% CI: 3.7-7.7), eliminating severe HFS (4.5; 95% CI: 2.7-6.4), eliminating a 2% lung-damage risk (4.1; 95% CI: 2.5-5.8), and switching from infusion once a week to 1 pill once a day (2.5; 95% CI: 1.4-3.6). To increase PFS by 1 month (baseline: 3 - 4 months), patients accepted a maximum level of lung damage risk of 1.0% (95% CI: 0.8% - 1.4%) and liver failure risk of 0.7% (95% CI: 0.4% - 1.0%). A 7-month improvement in PFS was 2 times as important as eliminating severe HFS and a 2.0% risk of lung damage (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PFS was the most important outcome for RCC patients while severe fatigue and severe stomach problems were rated as the most troublesome toxicities.