Therapy preferences in melanoma treatment--willingness to pay and preference of quality versus length of life of patients, physicians and healthy controls

Preferences for quality of life versus length of life in older women deciding about treatment for early breast cancer: A cross-sectional sub-analysis of the Bridging the Age Gap study

INTRODUCTION

Prioritising quality of life (QoL) or length of life is often necessary in the decision-making process for cancer care. This may be complicated in patients with limited life expectancy due to age and comorbidities. Older women with early breast cancer often receive non-standard care (primary endocrine therapy [PET] or omission of chemotherapy or radiotherapy) to reduce treatment morbidity and maintain QoL. We aimed to determine the perceived relative influence of QoL versus length of life in treatment decision making by older women with early (potentially curable) breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a sub-study of the Age Gap multi-centre, cohort study, which prospectively recruited women >70 yrs. with early breast cancer. Baseline demographics, health characteristics, and QoL scores were analysed alongside a bespoke questionnaire to assess QoL and length of life preferences, including a modified version of the validated quality/quantity questionnaire, in a subset of the main study.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was sent to 308 patients and 194 (63 %) were returned by participants with a median age of 75 years (range 70-93). Of these, 14 had PET and 180 had standard treatment (ST) (surgery +/- adjuvant therapy) including 37 who had chemotherapy. The PET group was older (median age 83.5 versus 76 years) and in poorer health (9/14; 64.3 % patients had one or more comorbidities versus 69/144; 47.9 %) with inferior baseline physical domain QoL scores. Patients who received PET valued QoL and length of life equally (Q score 0.87, L score 0.91), and patients who received chemotherapy favoured length of life over QoL (Q score 0.67, L score 0.86). Subgroup analysis showed a small correlation between increasing age and QoL preferences (Spearman's r = 0.2, P < 0.009). There was no correlation between co-morbidities, frailty, or global QoL and length of life/QoL preferences.

DISCUSSION

Older women with early breast cancer valued length of life and QoL highly, with an association between preference for QoL and less aggressive treatment choices. Relative QoL preference increased with advancing age. More research is needed to define QoL determinants and outcomes following treatment to help patients make decisions that reflect their priorities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN: 46099296.

Preferences of physicians for treatment-related toxicity vs. recurrence in melanoma (GERMELATOX-A): the doctors' perspective

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as PD1-antibodies (ICI) ± CTLA4-antibodies (cICI) or targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (TT), has shown a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) for high-risk melanoma patients. However, due to specific side effects, the choice of treatment is often influenced by the risk of toxicity. Therefore, the role of physicians in treatment decisions of patients is crucial. This study investigated for the first time in a multicenter setting the attitudes and preferences of dermatooncologists in Germany and Switzerland regarding adjuvant treatment with (c)ICI and TT.

METHODS

In the GERMELATOX-A study, 108 physicians (median age: 32 yrs, 67.6% female) from 11 skin cancer centers were surveyed to rate typical side effect scenarios of (c)ICI and TT treatments and then compared to patients' ratings evaluated in a previous analysis from the same centers. The scenarios described mild-to-moderate or severe toxicity and included melanoma relapse leading to death. The physicians were asked about the level of side effects they would tolerate in exchange for a reduction in melanoma relapse and an increase in survival at 5 years.

RESULTS

The preferences of physicians and patients revealed significant differences regarding adjuvant melanoma treatment with (c)ICI and TT (p < 0.05). Compared to patients, physicians tend to value a melanoma relapse less severe, according to a visual analog scale. They were also less threatened by all scenarios of side effects during adjuvant treatment with (c)ICI or TT, compared to patients. Physicians required lower risk reductions for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for both ICI and TT and their drug-related side effects to accept these treatments. In case of severe side effects, physicians required similar 5-year DFS rates for ICI and TT (60-65%), while patients needed a 15% improvement of 5-year DFS for ICI compared to TT (80%/65%). For survival, physicians expected an OS improvement of + 10% for all three treatment modalities, whereas patients required a higher increase: + 18-22% for ICI and + 15% for TT.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the importance of understanding the patient's perspective and a potential difference to the doctor's view when making decisions about adjuvant melanoma treatment with (c)ICI and TT, especially as these treatments are increasingly being implemented in earlier stages.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines

BACKGROUND

Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement.

METHOD

Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type.

RESULTS

The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.

POLICY SUMMARY

Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Differences between physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is useful to facilitate cancer treatment decisions. However, it is difficult to make treatment decisions when physician and patient preferences are different. This review aimed to summarize and compare the preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus. Studies elicited and compared preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients were included. Information about the study design and preference measuring attributes or questions were extracted. The available relative rank of every attribute in discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies and answers to preference measuring questions in non-DCE studies were summarized followed by a narrative synthesis to reflect the preference differences.

RESULTS

Of 12,959 studies identified, 8290 were included in the title and abstract screening and 48 were included in the full text screening. Included 37 studies measured the preferences from six treatment-related aspects: health benefit, adverse effects, treatment process, cost, impact on quality of life, and provider qualification. The trade-off between health benefit and adverse effects was the main focus of the included studies. DCE studies showed patients gave a higher rank on health benefit and treatment process, while physicians gave a higher rank on adverse effects. Non-DCE studies suggested that patients were willing to take a higher risk of adverse effects or lower health benefit than physicians when accepting a treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians and patients had important preference differences for cancer treatment. More sufficient communication is needed in cancer treatment decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness of Response-Adapted De-escalation of Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Importance

Combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab has markedly improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. However, these therapies pose a considerable financial burden to both patients and the health care system. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated comparable progression-free and overall survival for patients with response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with standard of care (SOC).

Objective

To determine the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab discontinuation for patients with interim imaging-confirmed tumor response in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from the ADAPT-IT (follow-up of 33 months) and CheckMate 067 (follow-up of 6.5 years) trials, as well as published literature over the ADAPT-IT trial duration of 33 months. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a US-payer perspective, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A total of 355 patients with previously untreated melanoma (unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma) were included.

Exposure

Response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with SOC therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes of the CheckMate trial were overall survival and progression-free survival, while that of ADAPT-IT was objective response. This informed a decision model to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs associated with both strategies. Incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio were assessed. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to account for variability in trials and input parameters.

Results

Of the 355 patients included in the analysis, 41 patients were from the ADAPT-IT trial (median age, 65 years; 28 [68%] male) and 314 patients from the CheckMate 067 trial (median age, 61 years; 206 [66%] male). Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94.0% of scenarios based on Monte Carlo simulations, with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and an incremental net monetary benefit of $28 849 compared with SOC therapy. Cost savings were estimated at $19 891 per patient compared with SOC. In scenario analyses, current SOC was only considered as a cost-effective option under best survival assumptions and if the willingness-to-pay threshold exceeded $630 000/QALY.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation demonstrated that response-adapted treatment de-escalation in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings in health care costs and could represent the most cost-effective strategy across various resource settings. Future trials should aim to provide further evidence on noninferiority.

Priorities and preferences of advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients starting palliative chemotherapy: baseline results from the HOLISTIC study

INTRODUCTION

Palliative chemotherapy is the principal treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS); however prognosis is limited (median overall survival 12-19 months). In this setting, patient values and priorities are central to personalised treatment decisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The prospective HOLISTIC study was conducted in the UK and the Netherlands assessing health-related quality of life in STS patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Participants completed a questionnaire before starting chemotherapy, including attitudes towards quality of life (QoL) versus length of life (LoL), decisional control preferences, and decisional conflict. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and preferences.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients with advanced STS participated (UK: n = 72, the Netherlands: n = 65). Median age was 62 (27-79) years. Preference for extended LoL (n = 66, 48%) was slightly more common than preference for QoL (n = 56, 41%); 12 patients (9%) valued LoL and QoL equally (missing: n = 3). Younger patients (age <40 years) prioritised LoL, whereas two-thirds of older patients (aged ≥65 years) felt that QoL was equally or more important than LoL (P = 0.020). Decisional conflict was most common in patients who prioritised QoL (P = 0.024). Most patients preferred an active (n = 45, 33%) or collaborative (n = 59, 44%) role in treatment decisions. Gender, performance status, and country were significantly associated with preferred role. Concordance between preferred and actual role in chemotherapy decision was high (n = 104, 76%).

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneous priorities and preferences among advanced STS patients support personalised decisions about palliative treatment. Considering individual differences during treatment discussions may enhance communication and optimise patient-centred care.

Adjuvant immunotherapy recommendations for stage III melanoma: physician and nurse interviews

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant immunotherapy is revolutionising care for patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma. However, immunotherapy may be associated with toxicity, making treatment decisions complicated. This study aimed to identify factors physicians and nurses considered regarding adjuvant immunotherapy for melanoma.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with physicians (medical oncologists, surgeons and dermatologists) and nurses managing patients with resected stage III melanoma at three Australian tertiary melanoma centres between July 2019 and March 2020. Factors considered regarding adjuvant immunotherapy were explored. Recruitment continued until data saturation and thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Twenty-five physicians and nurses, aged 28-68 years, 60% females, including eleven (44%) medical oncologists, eight (32%) surgeons, five (20%) nurses, and one (4%) dermatologist were interviewed. Over half the sample managed five or more new resected stage III patients per month who could be eligible for adjuvant immunotherapy. Three themes about adjuvant immunotherapy recommendations emerged: [1] clinical and patient factors, [2] treatment information provision, and [3] individual physician/nurse factors. Melanoma sub-stage and an individual patient's therapy risk/benefit profile were primary considerations. Secondary factors included uncertainty about adjuvant immunotherapy's effectiveness and their views about treatment burden patients might consider acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' disease sub-stage and their treatment risk versus benefit drove the melanoma health care professionals' adjuvant immunotherapy endorsement. Findings clarify clinician preferences and values, aiding clinical communication with patients and facilitating clinical decision-making about management options for resected stage III melanoma.

Exploring the Experiences of People Treated With Immunotherapies for Advanced Melanoma and Those Caring for Them: "Real-World" Data

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in the development of immunotherapy drugs have resulted in durable responses and improved overall survival for a proportion of patients with advanced melanoma; however, toxicities can be potentially life-threatening. The patients' family and friends (carers) are relied upon to support patients at home post treatment; however, we know little about their experiences.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand the experiences of patients with advanced melanoma who received immunotherapy and their carers; and to explore the impact of immunotherapy treatment on patients' and carers' quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

A cross-sectional, exploratory design was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients: diagnosed with stage IV melanoma, attending an Australian public cancer hospital, had completed or were receiving treatment with immunotherapies; and the people caring for them at home.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 22) described how immunotherapy impacted emotional health, functional ability; and had damaging economic consequences. Fatigue was reported consistently as having a considerable negative influence across all domains of QoL. Carers (n = 9) were anxious about their ability to correctly identify, report and manage side effects at home.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate how immunotherapy can impact the QoL of both patients and carers, either directly through toxicities or indirectly through mechanisms such as stress, financial toxicity, or fatigue that limits participation in life activities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Supportive care resources and interventions are needed for those receiving immunotherapy to minimise negative impacts on QoL. Carers likewise require better preparation and information to assist in identifying potential treatment toxicities and ensure patient safety.

Therapy preferences in melanoma treatment-Willingness to pay and preference of quality versus length of life of patients, physicians, healthy individuals and physicians with oncological disease

Background

In recent years, monoclonal antibodies such as ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have made a significant impact on the treatment of advanced melanoma. Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors leads to improved survival and response rates of 58%‐61% as compared to monotherapy (36%‐44%). However, the price for the better response rates is also a higher frequency of severe adverse events (59%) as compared to monotherapy (17%‐21%). This study examines attitudes towards melanoma therapy options of physicians, healthy individuals, melanoma patients, and physicians with oncological disease, their willingness to pay, and preference of quality versus length of life.

Methods

After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent surveys were conducted in 111 participants divided into four groups: melanoma patients (n = 30), healthy individuals as controls (n = 30), physicians (n = 27), and physicians with oncological disease (n = 24). Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS statistics (version 25, IBM), applying the Pearson´s chi‐squared test, Spearman correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney test, and Kruskal‐Wallis test.

Results

Life prolongation is more valued by melanoma patients and physicians with oncological disease compared to healthy controls and healthy physicians. In total, 30% of melanoma patients opt for a life prolonging therapy in all cases, even if this life prolongation is only marginal. Physicians are the strongest proponents of combination immunotherapy.   

Conclusion

The valuation of the different treatment options differs in the four study groups with affected people valuing life prolongation much more. The individual value of cancer therapies is high, but differs from the societal standpoint.

Immunotargeted therapy in melanoma: patient, provider preferences, and willingness to pay at an academic cancer center

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

New melanoma therapies have shifted the expectations of patients and providers. Evaluating the impact of treatment characteristics may enhance shared decision making. A survey, including a discrete choice experiment, was utilized to evaluate perceived trade-offs of different melanoma treatments and to estimate out-of-pocket (OOP) willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds (January 2016 to March 2016). Participants included patients with melanoma at Huntsman Cancer Institute and their cancer care providers. Stakeholder focus groups were conducted to identify treatment attributes. Descriptive and comparative statistics and multinomial logit model were used to evaluate responses. Response rates were 41.9% (N = 220) for patients and 37.7% (N = 20) for providers. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy attributes considered important by participants were overall survival, immunotherapy-related side effects, and skin toxicities. Patients and providers had significantly different views of quality-of-life expectations, anxiety toward melanoma, trust to make treatment decisions, sharing concerns about treatment, time to discuss treatment, understanding OOP costs, and willingness to undergo/recommend treatment (half of the patients would undergo treatment if it was effective for > 24 months). Among patients, the average monthly OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab was $ 2357 and for BRAF/MEK inhibitor was $1648. Among providers, these estimates were $ 2484 and $1350, respectively. Discordance existed between patients’ and providers’ perceptions about quality of life expectations, degree of anxiety, sharing of opinions, and progression-free survival. Our study suggests that patients and providers exhibit a higher OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy treatment compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, influenced predominately by overall survival expectations.

Preferences for Immunotherapy in Melanoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy improves overall survival for patients with metatstatic melanoma and improves recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting, but is costly and has adverse effects. Little is known about the preferences of patients and clinicians regarding immunotherapy. This study aimed to identify factors important to patients and clinicians when deciding about immunotherapy for stages 2-4 melanoma.

METHODS

This study searched the Medline, EMBASE, ECONLIT, PsychINFO, and COCHRANE Systematic Reviews databases from inception to June 2018 for immunotherapy choice and preference studies. Findings were tabulated and summarized, and study reporting was assessed against recommended checklists.

RESULTS

This investigation identified eight studies assessing preferences for melanoma treatment; four studies regarding nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab; and four studies regarding interferon conducted in the United States, Germany, and Australia. The following 10 factors were important to decision-making: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, treatment side effects, dosing regimen, patient or payer cost, patient age, clinician or family/friend treatment recommendation, quality of life, and psychosocial effects. Overall survival was the most important factor for all respondents. The patients judged severe toxicities to be tolerable for small survival gains. The description of information about treatment harms and benefits was limited in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall survival was of primary importance to patients and clinicians considering immunotherapy. Impaired quality of life due to adverse effects appeared to be a second-order consideration. Future research is required to determine preferences for contemporary combination therapies, extended treatment durations, and avoidance of chronic side effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095899.

Patient and Oncology Nurse Preferences for the Treatment Options in Advanced Melanoma: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Understanding the perceptions of patients and oncology nurses about the relative importance of benefits and risks associated with newer treatments of advanced melanoma can help to inform clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to quantify and compare the views of patients and oncology nurses regarding the importance of attributes of treatments of advanced melanoma.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in US-based oncology nurses and patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma. Patients and nurses were enlisted through online panels. In a series of scenarios, respondents had to choose between 2 hypothetical treatments, each with 7 attributes: mode of administration (MoA), dosing schedule (DS), median duration of therapy (DoT), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs). Hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression models were used to estimate preference weights.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients with advanced melanoma and 150 oncology nurses participated. The relative importance estimates of attributes by patients and nurses, respectively, were as follows: OS, 33% and 28%; AEs, 29% and 26%; ORR, 25% and 27%; PFS, 12% and 15%; DS, 2% and 3%; DoT, 0% and 0%; and MoA, 0% and 0%.

CONCLUSION

Both patients and oncology nurses valued OS, ORR, and AEs as the most important treatment attributes for advanced melanoma, followed by PFS, whereas DS, DoT, and MoA were given less value in their treatment decisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncology nurses and patients have similar views on important treatment considerations for advanced melanoma, which can help build trust in shared decision-making.

Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Attributes of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic HR Positive/HER2 Negative Breast Cancer: Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling

PURPOSE

To understand and compare preferences for dosing- and toxicity-related attributes associated with selective cyclin-dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors regimens among US oncologists and patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Oncologists and patients with mBC participated in an internet-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise. For the DCE, participants chose between two hypothetical treatment profiles, each with seven attributes: risk of dose reduction due to adverse events (AEs), risk of diarrhea, risk of abdominal pain, need for electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring to assess heart function, risk of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, dosing regimen, and dosing schedule. The BWS exercise assessed the relative prioritization of a larger set of 16 attributes. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate preference weights for each attribute level.

RESULTS

Oncologists (N=209) and patients (N=304) rated risks of diarrhea (25% each) and Grade 3/4 neutropenia (20% and 24%, respectively) as the most important attributes for treatment choice. The risks of diarrhea and Grade 3/4 neutropenia were 1.8 to 2.3 times (oncologists: 25% and 20%, respectively vs 11%) and 2.4 to 2.5 times (patients: 25% and 24%, respectively vs 10%) higher in relative importance than the risk of dose reduction due to AEs. Oncologists placed greater importance on the risk of dose reduction due to AEs and the need for ECG monitoring, whereas patients placed greater importance on the risk of Grade 3/4 neutropenia (all, p<0.05). The BWS exercise results were largely consistent with those from the DCE.

CONCLUSION

The risks of diarrhea and Grade 3/4 neutropenia were key drivers of both oncologist and patient preferences. Overall, the palbociclib + aromatase inhibitor (AI) profile was most preferred, due to its association with a lower risk of diarrhea and no ECG monitoring, compared with abemaciclib + AI and ribociclib + AI profiles, respectively.

Preferences of Canadian patients and physicians for adjuvant treatments for melanoma

Background

Past research suggests that patients with early- and late-stage melanoma will endure adverse events and inconvenient treatment regimens for improved survival. Evidence about the preferences of Canadian patients and physicians for novel adjuvant treatments for melanoma is unavailable.

Methods

Patient and physician preferences for adjuvant treatments for melanoma were assessed in an online discrete choice experiment (dce). Treatment alternatives were characterized by 8 attributes with respect to dosing regimen, efficacy, and toxicities, with levels corresponding to those for dabrafenib-trametinib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and interferon. For patients, the effects of melanoma on quality of life and ability to work and perform activities of daily living were also assessed. Patients were recruited by Canadian melanoma patient advocacy groups through e-mail and social media. Physicians were recruited by e-mail.

Results

Of 94 patients who started the survey, 51 completed 1 or more dce questions. Of 166 physicians sent the e-mail invitation, 18 completed 1 or more dce questions. For patients, an increased probability of remaining cancer-free over 21 months was the most important attribute. For physicians, an increased chance of the patient's remaining alive over 36 months was the most important attribute. Patients and physicians chose active treatment over no treatment 85% and 86% of the time respectively and a treatment with attributes consistent with dabrafenib-trametinib 71% and 67% of the time respectively. A substantial proportion of patients reported worrying about future diagnostic tests and their cancer coming back.

Conclusions

Canadian patients and physicians are generally concordant in their preferences for adjuvant melanoma treatments, preferring active treatment to no treatment and dabrafenib-trametinib to other options.

Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and the possibility of trading quality of life (QoL) for length of life (LoL). Little information is available regarding patients' preferences and attitudes toward their cancer treatment and the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life. The aim of this review is to determine the complex trade-offs and underpinning factors that make patients with cancer choose quality over quantity of life.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MeSH terms: cancer, longevity or LoL, QoL, decision making, trade-off, and health utility. Articles retrieved were published between 1942 and October 2018.

RESULTS

Out of 4393 articles, 30 were included in this review. Older age, which may be linked to declining physical status, was associated with a preference for QoL over LoL. Younger patients were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment to increase survival years. Preference for QoL and LoL was not influenced by gender, education, religion, having children, marital status, or type of cancer. Patients with better health valued LoL and inversely those with poorer physical status preferred QoL.

CONCLUSION

Baseline QoL and future expectations of life seem to be key determinants of preference for QoL versus LoL in cancer patients. In-depth studies are required to understand these trade-offs and the compromises patients are willing to make regarding QoL or LoL, especially in older patients with naturally limited life expectancy.

Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and the possibility of trading quality of life (QoL) for length of life (LoL). Little information is available regarding patients' preferences and attitudes toward their cancer treatment and the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life. The aim of this review is to determine the complex trade-offs and underpinning factors that make patients with cancer choose quality over quantity of life.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MeSH terms: cancer, longevity or LoL, QoL, decision making, trade-off, and health utility. Articles retrieved were published between 1942 and October 2018.

RESULTS

Out of 4393 articles, 30 were included in this review. Older age, which may be linked to declining physical status, was associated with a preference for QoL over LoL. Younger patients were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment to increase survival years. Preference for QoL and LoL was not influenced by gender, education, religion, having children, marital status, or type of cancer. Patients with better health valued LoL and inversely those with poorer physical status preferred QoL.

CONCLUSION

Baseline QoL and future expectations of life seem to be key determinants of preference for QoL versus LoL in cancer patients. In-depth studies are required to understand these trade-offs and the compromises patients are willing to make regarding QoL or LoL, especially in older patients with naturally limited life expectancy.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results From a Survey of Patients and Providers

Background. Value assessments and treatment decision making typically focus on clinical endpoints, especially overall survival (OS). However, OS data are not always available, and surrogate markers may also have some value to patients. This study sought to estimate preferences for progression-free survival (PFS) relative to OS in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) among a diverse set of stakeholders—patients, oncologists, and oncology nurses—and estimate the value patients and providers place on other attributes of treatment. Methods. Utilizing a combined conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiment approach, we conducted an online prospective survey of mBC patients and oncology care providers who treat mBC patients across the United States. Results. A total of 299 mBC patients, 100 oncologists, and 99 oncology nurses completed the survey. Virtually all patients preferred health state sequences with contiguous periods of PFS, compared with approximately 85% and 75% of nurses and oncologists, respectively. On average, longer OS was significantly (P < 0.01) preferred by the majority (75%) patients, but only 15% of nurses preferred longer OS, and OS did not significantly affect oncologists’ preferred health state. However, in the context of a treatment decision, whether a treatment offered continuous periods of stable disease holding OS constant significantly affected nurses’ treatment choices. Patients and providers alike valued reductions in adverse event risk and evidence from high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials. Conclusions. The strong preference for observed PFS suggests more research is warranted to better understand the reasons for PFS having positive value to patients. The results also suggest a range of endpoints in clinical trials may have importance to patients.

What Is the Value of Innovative Pharmaceutical Therapies in Oncology and Hematology? A Willingness-to-Pay Study in Bulgaria

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the views of Bulgarian oncologists and hematologists regarding the value of innovative pharmaceutical treatments in their clinical area.

METHODS

Physicians were invited to review a life-prolonging scenario and to indicate what minimum improvement in median survival a new treatment would have to generate for them to recommend it over the standard of care. Respondents were also asked to state the highest cost at which they would recommend a new therapy that would improve patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but would have no impact on survival. In addition, physicians were asked whether they would consider different responses under certain circumstances. Responses were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each scenario.

RESULTS

In the life-prolonging scenario, participants required a median of 12-month improvement in the survival to reimburse a new therapy at an incremental cost of €50 000, implying a willingness-to-pay of €50 000 per QALY gained. In the HRQoL-enhancing scenario, respondents indicated a €100 000 median cost per QALY gained. We observed a significant variation in responses. Although the median ICER for better HRQoL was twice as high as the median ICER for longer survival, 5% trimmed mean values were almost equal. Physicians did not believe that a higher ICER should be used for the treatment of children or for rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a high willingness-to-pay for innovative drugs in oncology and hematology. The wide range of responses observed, however, indirectly implies a lack of consensus on the use of explicit ICER thresholds in Bulgaria.

Willingness to pay and quality of life in patients with pruritic skin disorders

Pruritic dermatosis is a frequent and burdensome disease. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the willingness to pay (WTP) and the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with pruritic dermatoses and (2) to compare the results with data on socio-demographic data, and clinical features/symptoms of the patients. One hundred and three patients with pruritic dermatosis had participated in a non-interventional, cross-sectional study. Socio-demographic data, clinical features/symptoms, a health-related quality of life (HRQoL)-based and a dermatology-specific instrument (SF-6D and DLQI, respectively), and two utility indicators such as rating scale (RS) and time-trade-off (TTO) as well as willingness to pay (WTP) were recorded. In our study, there was a significant correlation between DLQI scores and WTP (p < 0.001). Time-trade-off (TTO) was also statistically correlated with SF-6D (p = 0.001). Regression models showed that daily duration and pruritus intensity were associated with lower HRQoL. Furthermore, WTP was the only measure revealing demographic and socio-economic characteristics such as age, education level, family status and income as predicting factors. No significant differences between groups of varying skin diseases were observed. HRQoL and WTP proved to be valid tools to assess the burden of disease in patients with pruritic dermatosis. However, further research with a larger number of patients is needed to validate the present findings.

Factors associated with immunotherapy selection in patients with advanced melanoma

AIM

To explore factors associated with pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) versus ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) selection in advanced melanoma.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Total of 12 academic and satellite clinics contributed to this study. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between clinical characteristics and treatment choice.  Results: Total of 400 patients were included: 200 PEMBRO and 200 IPI+NIVO. Patients were significantly more likely to receive PEMBRO versus IPI+NIVO if they had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, 2-4 versus 0-1 (odds ratio [OR]: 6.6; 95% CI: 3.0-14.7), if they were PD-L1 positive (OR: 4.5; 95% CI: 1.9-10.4) or had BRAF wild-type tumor (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.4-3.6).

CONCLUSION

Patient factors are significantly associated with treatment selection in advanced melanoma. Outcomes comparisons should take this into consideration.

Approaches to decision-making among late-stage melanoma patients: a multifactorial investigation

Purpose

The treatment decisions of melanoma patients are poorly understood. Most research on cancer patient decision-making focuses on limited components of specific treatment decisions. This study aimed to holistically characterize late-stage melanoma patients’ approaches to treatment decision-making in order to advance understanding of patient influences and supports.

Methods

(1) Exploratory analysis of longitudinal qualitative data to identify themes that characterize patient decision-making. (2) Pattern analysis of decision-making themes using an innovative method for visualizing qualitative data: a hierarchically-clustered heatmap. Participants were 13 advanced melanoma patients at a large academic medical center.

Results

Exploratory analysis revealed eight themes. Heatmap analysis indicated two broad types of patient decision-makers. “Reliant outsiders” relied on providers for medical information, demonstrated low involvement in decision-making, showed a low or later-in-care interest in clinical trials, and expressed altruistic motives. “Active insiders” accessed substantial medical information and expertise in their networks, consulted with other doctors, showed early and substantial interest in trials, demonstrated high involvement in decision-making, and employed multiple decision-making strategies.

Conclusion

We identified and characterized two distinct approaches to decision-making among patients with late-stage melanoma. These differences spanned a wide range of factors (e.g., behaviors, resources, motivations). Enhanced understanding of patients as decision-makers and the factors that shape their decision-making may help providers to better support patient understanding, improve patient-provider communication, and support shared decision-making.

Willingness to pay for a cure of low-risk melanoma patients in Germany

Malignant melanoma is potentially life-threatening but in most cases curable if detected early. Willingness to pay (WTP) is a preference-based construct that reflects burden of disease by assessment of the monetary value for a hypothetical cure from disease. Since WTP (directly as total amount of money) has not been assessed so far in patients with low risk melanoma, it was interesting to gain insights in this patient population and then, in a second step, compare it directly with the WTP of their treating dermato-oncologists. WTP was assessed in 125 patients with low-risk melanoma and additionally in 105 treating physicians, asking for the one-time and continuous payments they would be willing to make for a sustainable cure, both as absolute sums and as percentages of monthly income. The median WTP based on one-time payment was €10,000 for patients and €100,000 for physicians; relative numbers were 100% versus 300% of monthly income. For continuous monthly payments, WTP was €500 for patients and €1000 for physicians, relative numbers 25% and 50% of income, respectively. Even after controlling for income differences, there was a significantly higher WTP in physicians for all four questions. Compared to patients with chronic skin diseases such as vitiligo, rosacea, atopic eczema and psoriasis, patients with low-risk melanoma showed a significantly higher WTP. Our data suggest that there is a relevant burden of disease even in patients with low-risk tumors. Higher WTP of physicians underlines the prevalence of differences in disease perception.

Volume-outcome relation in palliative systemic treatment of metastatic oesophagogastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Palliative systemic therapy has been shown to improve survival in metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Administration of palliative systemic therapy in metastatic oesophagogastric cancer varies between hospitals. We aimed to explore the association between the annual hospital volume of oesophagogastric cancer patients and survival.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed in the Netherlands between 2005 and 2013 with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were attributed according to three definitions of high volume: (1) high-volume incidence centre, (2) high-volume treatment centre and (3) high-volume surgical centre. Independent predictors for administration of palliative chemotherapy were evaluated by means of multivariable logistic regression analysis, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of high-volume centres on survival.

RESULTS

Our data set comprised 4078 patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer, and 5425 patients with metastatic gastric cancer, with a median overall survival of 20 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-21 weeks) and 16 weeks (95% CI 15-17 weeks), respectively. Patients with oesophageal cancer treated in a high-volume surgical centre (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91) and a high-volume treatment centre (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.99) exhibited a decreased risk of death. For gastric cancer, patients treated in a high-volume surgical centre (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.92) had a superior outcome.

CONCLUSION

Improved survival in patients undergoing palliative systemic therapy for oesophagogastric cancer was associated with treatment in high-volume treatment and surgical centres. Further research should be implemented to explore which specific factors of high-volume centres are associated with improved outcomes.

Management of adverse events related to new cancer immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors)

New immunotherapies have significantly improved survival in certain advanced cancers in recent years, particularly metastatic melanoma and lung cancer. The most effective of these therapies are the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The use of ICIs will continue to increase in the coming years as evidence of their benefit in a range of other cancers builds. ICIs are associated with novel immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can involve a wide range of organs. The most common irAEs involve the skin (rash, pruritus), gastrointestinal tract (diarrhoea, colitis) and endocrine system (thyroid, pituitary). While severity is generally mild, life-threatening complications can occur if not recognised and treated promptly. Due to the diverse manifestations of irAEs, patients may present to doctors who are not familiar with these drugs, which creates the potential for delays in management. Management of irAEs depends on severity and the organ affected. Systemic steroids are often required and ICI therapy may be withheld or discontinued. Additional immunosuppressive medications may be necessary in steroid-refractory cases. This review provides an overview of the potential toxicities and their management for general clinicians. Broader awareness of these issues among medical professionals will hopefully reduce unnecessary delays in diagnosis and treatment. Patient and carer education regarding irAEs is extremely important; patients and carers should be advised to seek urgent medical attention if required.

Patient and oncologist preferences for attributes of treatments in advanced melanoma: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

To examine and compare patient and oncologist preferences for advanced melanoma treatment attributes and to document their trade-offs for benefits with risks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among advanced melanoma patients and oncologists. Qualitative pilot testing was used to inform the DCE design. A series of scenarios asked stakeholders to choose between two hypothetical medications, each with seven attributes: mode of administration (MoA), dosing schedule (DS), median duration of therapy (MDT), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). Hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression models were used to determine patients' and oncologists' choice-based preferences, analysis of variance models were used to estimate the relative importance of attributes, and independent t-tests were used to compare relative importance estimates between stakeholders.

RESULTS

In total, 200 patients and 226 oncologists completed the study. OS was most important to patients (33%), followed by AEs (29%) and ORR (25%). For oncologists, AEs were most important (49%), followed by OS (34%) and ORR (12%). An improvement from 55% to 75% in 1-year OS was valued similar in magnitude to a 23% decrease (from 55% to 32%) in likelihood of AEs for oncologists.

CONCLUSION

Patients valued OS, AEs, and ORR sequentially as the most important attributes in making a treatment decision, whereas oncologists valued AEs most, followed by OS and ORR. In comparison, patients differed significantly from oncologists on the importance of ORR, AEs, and PFS, but were consistent in OS and the rest of attributes.

Perceptions of Oncologists, Healthcare Policy Makers, Patients and the General Population on the Value of Pharmaceutical Treatments in Oncology

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the main factors explaining the relative weight of the different attributes that determine the value of oncologic treatments from the different perspectives of healthcare policy makers (HCPM), oncologists, patients and the general population in Spain.

Methods

Structured interviews were conducted to assess: (1) the importance of the attributes on treatment choice when comparing a new cancer drug with a standard cancer treatment; (2) the importance of survival, quality of life (QoL), costs and innovation in cancer; and (3) the most worrying side effects related to cancer drugs.

Results

A total of 188 individuals participated in the study. For all participants, when choosing treatments, the best rated characteristics were greater efficacy, greater safety, treatment adaptation to patients’ individual requirements and the rapid reincorporation of patients to their daily activities. There were important differences among participants in their opinion about survival, QoL and cost. In general, oncologists, patients, and the general population gave greater value to gains in QoL than healthcare policy makers. Compared to other participants healthcare policy makers gave greater importance to the economic impact related to oncology treatments.

Conclusions

Gains in QoL, survival, safety, cost and innovation are perceived differently by different groups of stakeholders. It is recommended to consider the perspective of different stakeholders in the assessment of a new cancer drugs to obtain more informed decisions when deciding on the most appropriate treatment to use.

Funding

Eli Lilly & Co, Madrid (Spain).

Access to new cancer medicines in Australia: dispelling the myths and informing a public debate

Despite the high level of spending on cancer medicines in Australia, consumer organisations and the pharmaceutical industry often make claims of delayed or lack of access to new cancer medicines-claims that are frequently supported by prominent coverage in the Australian media. These claims, while morally and psychologically compelling, tend to ignore the complexity of medicines funding decisions. In this commentary we summarise the current situation regarding the registration and funding of cancer medicines in Australia, elucidate the main challenges associated with access to cancer medicines in the Australian context, and describe some of the steps that have been taken to address these challenges.

Volume matters in the systemic treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: a population-based study in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

In pancreatic surgery, a relation between surgical volume and postoperative mortality and overall survival (OS) has been recognized, with high-volume centers reporting significantly better survival rates. We aimed to explore the influence of hospital volume on administration of palliative chemotherapy and OS in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2011 with metastatic pancreatic cancer were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Three types of high-volume centers were defined: high-volume (1) incidence center, based on the number of patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer, (2) treatment center based on number of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who started treatment with palliative chemotherapy and (3) surgical center based on the number of resections with curative intent for pancreatic cancer. Independent predictors of administration of palliative chemotherapy were evaluated by means of logistic regression analysis. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the impact of being diagnosed or treated in high-volume centers on survival.

RESULTS

A total of 5385 patients presented with metastatic pancreatic cancer of which 24 % received palliative chemotherapy. Being treated with chemotherapy in a high-volume chemotherapy treatment center was associated with improved survival (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.67-0.87). Also, in all patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, being diagnosed in a high-volume surgical center was associated with improved survival (HR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.66-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital volume of palliative chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer was associated with improved survival, demonstrating that a volume-outcome relationship, as described for pancreatic surgery, may also exist for pancreatic medical oncology.

Management of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibition with the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab and the anti-PD-1 antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab has improved survival in metastatic melanoma, lung cancer and renal cancer. Use of these agents holds promise in other malignancies. The augmented immune response enabled by these agents has led to a particular group of side effects called immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The main irAEs include diarrhea, colitis, hepatitis, skin toxicities and endocrinopathies such as hypophysitis and thyroid dysfunction. The anti-PD-1 antibodies have a different toxicity profile to ipilimumab with fewer high grade events. This article identifies the rates of common and uncommon irAEs associated with each immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPI) and their timing of onset, focusing mainly on the experience in melanoma and lung cancer. An approach to management for each class of irAE is provided.