Patient preferences for treatment of advanced melanoma: impact of comorbidities.
Journal
Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG
ISSN: 1610-0387
Titre abrégé: J Dtsch Dermatol Ges
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101164708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
15
03
2020
accepted:
15
06
2020
pubmed:
6
10
2020
medline:
10
8
2021
entrez:
5
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Choice of treatment for advanced melanoma is crucially influenced by comorbidities and patient preferences. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of comorbidities on preferences. 150 patients with melanoma stage IIC-IV completed a discrete choice experiment to determine preferences for outcome (overall response rate [ORR], 2-year survival, progression-free survival [PFS], time to response [TTR], kind of adverse events [AE], AE-related treatment discontinuation) and process attributes (frequency and route of administration [RoA], frequency of consultations) of systemic melanoma treatments. The impact of comorbidities was assessed by analysis of variance and multivariate regression. Participants with hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases attached significantly greater importance to TTR and RoA than others. Respondents with arthropathy cared more about TTR (β = 0.179, P = 0.047) and RoA, but less about ORR (β = -0.209, P = 0.021). Individuals with diabetes considered AE (β = 0.185, P = 0.039) and frequency of consultations more essential, but ORR less relevant. Those with other malignancies were particularly worried about treatment discontinuation (β = 0.219, P = 0.008), but less about ORR (β = -0.202, P = 0.015). Participants with depression focused more on PFS (β = 0.201, P = 0.025) and less on TTR (β = -0.201, P = 0.023) and RoA (β = -0.167, P = 0.050). Treatment preferences of melanoma patients vary significantly dependent on comorbidities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Choice of treatment for advanced melanoma is crucially influenced by comorbidities and patient preferences. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of comorbidities on preferences.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
150 patients with melanoma stage IIC-IV completed a discrete choice experiment to determine preferences for outcome (overall response rate [ORR], 2-year survival, progression-free survival [PFS], time to response [TTR], kind of adverse events [AE], AE-related treatment discontinuation) and process attributes (frequency and route of administration [RoA], frequency of consultations) of systemic melanoma treatments. The impact of comorbidities was assessed by analysis of variance and multivariate regression.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Participants with hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases attached significantly greater importance to TTR and RoA than others. Respondents with arthropathy cared more about TTR (β = 0.179, P = 0.047) and RoA, but less about ORR (β = -0.209, P = 0.021). Individuals with diabetes considered AE (β = 0.185, P = 0.039) and frequency of consultations more essential, but ORR less relevant. Those with other malignancies were particularly worried about treatment discontinuation (β = 0.219, P = 0.008), but less about ORR (β = -0.202, P = 0.015). Participants with depression focused more on PFS (β = 0.201, P = 0.025) and less on TTR (β = -0.201, P = 0.023) and RoA (β = -0.167, P = 0.050).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment preferences of melanoma patients vary significantly dependent on comorbidities.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58-70Informations de copyright
© 2020 Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft (DDG). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Robert Koch Institute. Cancer in Germany in 2015/2016. 12th edition. Berlin: Robert Koch Institute, Association of Population-based Cancer Registries in Germany, 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.25646/5977 [Last accessed August 10, 2020].
Schoffer O, Schülein S, Arand G et al. Tumour stage distribution and survival of malignant melanoma in Germany 2002-2011. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 936.
Grann AF, Froslev T, Olesen AB et al. The impact of comorbidity and stage on prognosis of Danish melanoma patients, 1987-2009: A registry-based cohort study. Br J Cancer 2013; 109: 265-71.
Bebe FN, Hu S, Brown TL, Tulp OL. Role, extent, and impact of comorbidity on prognosis and survival in advanced metastatic melanoma: A review. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2019; 12: 16-23.
Edwards MJ, Campbell ID, Lawrenson RA, Kuper-Hommel MJ. Influence of comorbidity on chemotherapy use for early breast cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 165: 17-39.
Hall WH, Jani AB, Ryu JK et al. The impact of age and comorbidity on survival outcomes and treatment patterns in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2005; 8: 22-30.
Lemmens VE, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Verheij CD et al. Co-morbidity leads to altered treatment and worse survival of elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 615-23.
Schummer P, Schilling B, Gesierich A. Long-term outcomes in BRAF-mutated melanoma treated with combined targeted therapy or immune checkpoint blockade: Are we approaching a true cure? Am J Clin Dermatol 2020; 21: 493-520.
Zoratti MJ, Devji T, Levine O et al. Network meta-analysis of therapies for previously untreated advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Cancer Treat Rev 2019; 74: 43-8.
Long GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1877-88.
Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 30-9.
Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dreno B et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1867-76.
Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dréno B et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma (COBRIM): Updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 1248-60.
Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ et al. Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (columbus): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 1315-27.
Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 711-23.
Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 320-30.
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2521-32.
Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 23-34.
Andtbacka RH, Kaufman HL, Collichio F et al. Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2780-8.
Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 1535-46.
Kilbridge KL, Weeks JC, Sober AJ et al. Patient preferences for adjuvant interferon alfa-2b treatment. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 812-23.
Kaehler KC, Blome C, Forschner A et al. Preferences of German melanoma patients for interferon (IFN) alpha-2b toxicities (the DEECOG “GERMELATOX survey”) versus melanoma recurrence to quantify patients’ relative values for adjuvant therapy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e5375.
Kähler KC, Blome C, Forschner A et al. The outweigh of toxicity versus risk of recurrence for adjuvant interferon therapy: A survey in German melanoma patients and their treating physicians. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 26217-25.
Liu FX, Witt EA, Ebbinghaus S et al. Patient and oncologist preferences for attributes of treatments in advanced melanoma: A discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11: 1389-99.
Liu FX, Witt EA, Ebbinghaus S et al. Patient and oncology nurse preferences for the treatment options in advanced melanoma: A discrete choice experiment. Cancer Nurs 2019; 42: E52-9.
Stenehjem DD, Au TH, Ngorsuraches S et al. Immunotargeted therapy in melanoma: Patient, provider preferences, and willingness to pay at an academic cancer center. Melanoma Res 2019; 29: 626-34.
Mansfield C, Ndife B, Chen J et al. Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Future Oncol 2019; 15: 1255-68.
Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320: 1530-3.
Weilandt J, Diehl K, Schaarschmidt ML et al. Patient preferences in adjuvant and palliative treatment of advanced melanoma: A discrete choice experiment. Acta Derm Venereol 2020; 100: adv00083.
Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR et al. Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 472-92.
Knopf H, Grams D. [Medication use of adults in Germany: Results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2013; 56: 868-77.
Disdier Moulder MPA, Hendricks AK, Ou NN. Towards appropriate polypharmacy in older cardiovascular patients: How many medications do I have to take? Clin Cardiol 2020; 43: 137-44.
Muth C, Blom JW, Smith SM et al. Evidence supporting the best clinical management of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: A systematic guideline review and expert consensus. J Intern Med 2019; 285: 272-88.
Totzeck M, Schuler M, Stuschke M et al. Cardio-oncology - strategies for management of cancer-therapy related cardiovascular disease. Int J Cardiol 2019; 280: 163-75.
Angermann CE, Ertl G. Depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment: Comorbid mental health disorders in heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2018; 15: 398-410.
Le J, Dorstyn DS, Mpofu E et al. Health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease: A systematic review and metaanalysis mapped against the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Qual Life Res 2018; 27: 2491-503.
Briggs AM, Cross MJ, Hoy DG et al. Musculoskeletal health conditions represent a global threat to healthy aging: A report for the 2015 World Health Organization world report on ageing and health. Gerontologist 2016; 56(Suppl 2): S243-55.
Khursheed R, Singh SK, Wadhwa S et al. Treatment strategies against diabetes: Success so far and challenges ahead. Eur J Pharmacol 2019; 862: 172625.
Cannon A, Handelsman Y, Heile M, Shannon M. Burden of illness in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2018; 24: S5-S13.
Wang YH, Li JQ, Shi JF et al. Depression and anxiety in relation to cancer incidence and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Mol Psychiatry 2020; 25: 1487-99.
Lin PH, Liu JM, Hsu RJ et al. Depression negatively impacts survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15. pii: E2148.
Shinn EH, Valentine A, Jethanandani A et al. Depression and oropharynx cancer outcome. Psychosom Med 2016; 78: 38-48.
Barber B, Dergousoff J, Slater L et al. Depression and survival in patients with head and neck cancer: A systematic review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 142: 284-8.
Gogas HJ, Karalexi MA, Dessypris N et al. The role of depression and personality traits in patients with melanoma: A South-European study. Melanoma Res 2017; 27: 625-31.
Rand KL, Banno DA, Shea AM, Cripe LD. Life and treatment goals of patients with advanced, incurable cancer. Support Care Cancer 2016; 24: 2953-62.
Kasparian NA. Psychological stress and melanoma: Are we meeting our patients’ psychological needs? Clin Dermatol 2013; 31: 41-6.
Quaife M, Terris-Prestholt F, Di Tanna GL, Vickerman P. How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity. Eur J Health Econ 2018; 19: 1053-66.