Assessing treatment preferences among patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United States: A discrete choice experiment

630

Background: The introduction of immunotherapies has changed the first-line treatment landscape for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study examines patient preferences in this rapidly changing environment to better understand the tradeoffs patients with aRCC are willing to make when choosing treatment. Methods: Patients with self-reported aRCC in the United States completed an online, cross-sectional survey. A discrete choice experiment was used to assess preferences for attributes of aRCC treatments. Patients completed a series of choice tasks showing 2 treatment profiles that varied in 7 important attributes identified through literature and qualitative research: overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), risk of adverse events, quality of life (QOL) changes, and treatment administration. Descriptive statistics were reported, and a hierarchical Bayesian logistic model was used to calculate preference weights. Relative importance estimates (mean ± standard error) were computed for each attribute; these represent the mean percentage of the variation in preferences explained by the attribute. Results: Survey results from a total of 299 patients were analyzed (male, 50%; mean age, 56 years). All 7 attributes were statistically significant for influencing the choice of treatment. Key attributes included treatment regimen convenience and QOL improvement, which ranked similarly to increasing survival time. Among the efficacy attributes, increasing survival time was most important, followed by ORR, PFS, and DOR. Reducing the risk of serious adverse events from 82% to 65% was prioritized after the efficacy parameters. Conclusions: Patients with aRCC highly value less burdensome treatment regimens and improved QoL in addition to improvement in survival. This highlights the need for a broader context beyond efficacy and safety when discussing treatment options with patients. Funding: This study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Racial differences in treatment patterns and outcomes of first-line (1L) therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in the real-world (RW) setting

4548

Background: In 1L therapy for aRCC, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM+AXI) have demonstrated significantly improved clinical outcomes versus sunitinib in phase III trials. African American/Black (AA) patients are grossly underrepresented in all aRCC trials. Little is known about the impact of racial differences on the use of 1L therapies and clinical outcomes in the RW setting. Methods: This retrospective chart review included AA and White American (WA) patients diagnosed with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC)/Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) intermediate/poor (I/P)-risk aRCC who initiated on 1L NIVO+IPI, PEM+AXI, or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy with sunitinib, pazopanib, or cabozantinib. Patients’ demographic/clinical characteristics and outcomes were abstracted from medical charts by treating oncologists. Use of 1L therapy, treatment discontinuation, and clinical outcomes including disease response, landmark progression-free survival (PFS), landmark overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates were assessed descriptively by race. Results: Of 473 patients, 95 (20.1%) were AA, and 378 (79.9%) were WA patients. Median follow-up was 10.9 months. A higher proportion of AA vs. WA patients had received 1L TKI monotherapy (21.1% vs. 16.1%). Treatment discontinuation rate was higher in AA vs. WA patients (49.5% vs. 43.4%). Treatment response was lower in AA than WA patients (overall response rate [ORR]: 58.8% vs. 74.8%; complete response [CR]: 8.2% vs. 11.4%). The TRAE rate was slightly lower in AA vs. WA patients (25.3% vs. 32.5%). Stratified clinical outcomes including landmark PFS and OS rates at 6 and 9 months are shown in the Table. Conclusions: In this RW I/P-risk aRCC cohort, fewer AA patients were treated with standard of care immune-oncology (IO)-based therapy vs. WA patients, which may contribute to differences in therapy discontinuation and survival outcomes. Also, even with short follow-up, clinically meaningful ORR differences are noted in AA and WA patients. [Table: see text]