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.
adverse events
metastatic HR positive/HER2 negative breast cancer
selective cyclin-dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors
stakeholder preferences
treatment administration
treatment choice
Journal
Patient preference and adherence
ISSN: 1177-889X
Titre abrégé: Patient Prefer Adherence
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101475748
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
21
03
2020
accepted:
25
09
2020
entrez:
12
11
2020
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
13
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33177814
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S254934
pii: 254934
pmc: PMC7652230
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2201-2214Informations de copyright
© 2020 Maculaitis et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Martine C. Maculaitis, Oliver Will, Madelyn Hanson, Alexandra Berk, and Melissa Crastnopol are employees of Kantar, who were paid consultants to Pfizer in connection with the development of this manuscript. Xianchen Liu and Lynn McRoy are employees of Pfizer. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Sep;32(9):883-902
pubmed: 25005924
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Apr;174(3):597-604
pubmed: 30659432
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct;14 Suppl 4:3-11
pubmed: 30288930
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 3;375(18):1738-1748
pubmed: 27717303
Med Care. 2013 Sep;51(9):838-45
pubmed: 23872905
Breast Cancer. 2018 Jul;25(4):479-488
pubmed: 29470723
Front Oncol. 2018 Aug 10;8:308
pubmed: 30148117
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2015 Nov;7(6):304-20
pubmed: 26557899
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017 Aug 14;11:1389-1399
pubmed: 28860722
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Aug;171(1):11-20
pubmed: 29725889
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 May;97(20):e10746
pubmed: 29768351
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 20;34(21):2452-9
pubmed: 27217455
Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 12;111(4):674-9
pubmed: 24921911
BMC Urol. 2016 Nov 4;16(1):63
pubmed: 27814714
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 04;9(11):e111237
pubmed: 25369124
Curr Oncol. 2019 Dec;26(6):370-379
pubmed: 31896935
Target Oncol. 2019 Apr;14(2):139-148
pubmed: 30941621
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011 Jul;46(7):962-9
pubmed: 20935681
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Apr;126(2):529-37
pubmed: 20803066
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381(4):307-316
pubmed: 31166679
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014 Oct;7(7):386-96
pubmed: 25525495
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):25-35
pubmed: 25524798
Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Aug;34(6):506-17
pubmed: 25189522
Oncologist. 2000;5(3):250-9
pubmed: 10884503
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Mar;34(3):431-7
pubmed: 25732493
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 1;19(3):812-23
pubmed: 11157035
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 16;373(3):209-19
pubmed: 26030518
BMJ Open. 2017 May 17;7(5):e014719
pubmed: 28515194