Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Adverse effects
Benefit
Benefit-harm assessment
Discrete choice experiment
Harm
Metastasis
Patient preferences
Patient-centered care
Prostate cancer
Survival
Treatment
Journal
European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
accepted:
03
03
2023
medline:
16
5
2023
pubmed:
16
5
2023
entrez:
15
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups. We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022. We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses. Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population ( Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC. We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.
Design setting and participants
UNASSIGNED
We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
UNASSIGNED
We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.
Results and limitations
UNASSIGNED
Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.
Patient summary
UNASSIGNED
We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37187724
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.001
pii: S2666-1683(23)00125-8
pmc: PMC10175729
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
26-38Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Références
Cancer Med. 2020 Sep;9(18):6586-6596
pubmed: 32725755
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
Prostate. 2014 Nov;74(15):1488-97
pubmed: 25132622
Eur Urol. 2019 Jul;76(1):115-124
pubmed: 30826218
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018 May 18;18(1):97
pubmed: 29776337
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 Nov;28(6):e13140
pubmed: 31475410
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 Jan;28(1):e12949
pubmed: 30408244
BMJ. 2002 Oct 26;325(7370):961-4
pubmed: 12399352
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300-15
pubmed: 27325321
Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):734-740
pubmed: 27712699
Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 Dec;5(6):605-616
pubmed: 35599144
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Mar 01;7(3):412-420
pubmed: 33443584
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226
pubmed: 30392040
Adv Ther. 2018 Dec;35(12):2186-2200
pubmed: 30415297
J Urol. 2021 Jan;205(1):22-29
pubmed: 32960678
Eur Urol. 2022 Dec;82(6):584-598
pubmed: 35995644
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2019 Feb;38:8-12
pubmed: 30717941
Am J Mens Health. 2018 Jul;12(4):1094-1101
pubmed: 29774804
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 Dec 20;36:9-18
pubmed: 34977691
Cancer Nurs. 2018 Jan/Feb;41(1):2-10
pubmed: 27811543
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Aug;63(8):639-45
pubmed: 19386611
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
pubmed: 18620460
Ann Oncol. 2020 Sep;31(9):1119-1134
pubmed: 32593798
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13
pubmed: 23337210
JAMA Oncol. 2022 Mar 01;8(3):420-444
pubmed: 34967848
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Sep;35(9):859-866
pubmed: 28536955
Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):746-750
pubmed: 27712701
Clin Ther. 2017 Apr;39(4):723-737
pubmed: 28366592
Br J Cancer. 2013 Feb 19;108(3):533-41
pubmed: 23361056
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Nov;106(5):955-959
pubmed: 30929257
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):508-547
pubmed: 32001144
Drug Discov Today. 2019 Jan;24(1):57-68
pubmed: 30266656
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2020 Dec;49:101859
pubmed: 33126157
Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 Aug;5(4):377-387
pubmed: 35641398
Value Health. 2022 May;25(5):685-694
pubmed: 35500943
Support Care Cancer. 2020 Jul;28(7):3093-3101
pubmed: 31659445
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022 Jun 28;16:1539-1557
pubmed: 35789822
Patient. 2017 Jun;10(3):263-266
pubmed: 28247251
Adv Ther. 2019 Feb;36(2):318-332
pubmed: 30617763
Med Decis Making. 2019 Jul;39(5):605-616
pubmed: 31257997
Cancer Nurs. 2012 Jan-Feb;35(1):63-9
pubmed: 21558849
Qual Life Res. 2019 May;28(5):1191-1199
pubmed: 30767088
Drug Discov Today. 2019 Jul;24(7):1324-1331
pubmed: 31077814
BMC Urol. 2016 Nov 4;16(1):63
pubmed: 27814714
J Urol. 2021 Jan;205(1):14-21
pubmed: 32960679
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(2):153-9
pubmed: 17637761