TY - JOUR
T1 - Patient and oncologist preferences for attributes of treatments in advanced melanoma
T2 - A discrete choice experiment
AU - Liu, Frank Xiaoqing
AU - Witt, Edward A.
AU - Ebbinghaus, Scot
AU - Beyer, Grace Dibonaventura
AU - Shinde, Reshma
AU - Basurto, Enrique
AU - Joseph, Richard W.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Michelle Vichnin, Tarek Hammad, and Cathy Anne Pinto, employees of Merck & Co., Inc., who assisted in the implementation of the study. Salome Samant, an employee of Merck & Co., Inc., assisted with the preparation of the manuscript. EAW is now at Walgreens. This research was financially supported by Merck & Co., Inc. Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Funding Information:
FXL, SE, and RS are employees of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, a manufacturer that funded this study and produces medication therapy used to treat melanoma. GDBB, EB, and EAW are employees of Kantar Health. Kantar Health received funding from Merck and Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, for conducting this study and the development of this manuscript. RWJ served as a paid consultant for the study project for Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, but received no compensation for the development of this manuscript. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Liu et al.
PY - 2017/8/14
Y1 - 2017/8/14
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Discrete choice experiment
KW - Metastatic melanoma
KW - Systemic therapy
KW - Unresectable
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027858126&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027858126&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2147/PPA.S140226
DO - 10.2147/PPA.S140226
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85027858126
SN - 1177-889X
VL - 11
SP - 1389
EP - 1399
JO - Patient Preference and Adherence
JF - Patient Preference and Adherence
ER -