Background: There is an increasing awareness of the importance of pt-centricity in cancer treatments. To achieve pt-centricity in mRCC treatment, it is important to clarify the differences of preferences between pts and physicians in terms of efficacy, safety, quality of life, and healthcare economics. However, these data are currently lacking for Japanese pts with RCC. This study aims to identify any differences in preferences for drug treatments between pts with mRCC and physicians in Japan, as well as assess the financial toxicity of mRCC and its influencing factors among pts. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study collected data via a web survey of pts with mRCC and physicians. The primary endpoint was to identify the differences in drug-treatment preferences between pts and physicians. The secondary endpoints included identification of the side effects that were most distressing to the pts and those that were most difficult to communicate to the physicians, and the reasons for this. We also evaluated the financial toxicity using the “COST” tool as an exploratory endpoint. Fisher's exact test was used in the evaluation of differences between pts and physicians. Background factors for financial toxicity were evaluated using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. Pearson’s correlation was used to assess the correlation between COST score and FACT-G score. Results: 83 Pts and 165 physicians were included in the analysis. For pts, “eliminating all evidence of disease” (P< 0.001) was the most important drug-treatment outcome, while for physicians, it was “longer survival” (P< 0.001). The item of most concern about drug treatment was “disturbing daily activities due to the side effect” for both pts and physicians; while pts were more concerned than physicians about “financial burden” (P< 0.01) and “lack of the knowledge for the treatment” (P< 0.001). Diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting were the most distressing side effects for pts; 51% of pts had difficulty in telling their physicians about side effects such as fatigue, anxiety, and depression. The median COST score was 19 (range, 3–36) and multivariate analysis showed that age and private insurance were independent factors in financial toxicity. In addition, the COST score was positively correlated with the FACT-G total score (r = 0.40, P < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a gap between pts with mRCC and physicians in their preferences and concerns about drug treatment. Japanese pts with mRCC suffer from side effects, some of which are not shared with physicians, and experience adverse financial impacts even under the universal health insurance coverage system available in Japan. This study highlights the importance of communicating well with pts in clinical practice to achieve pt-centricity in systemic treatment for mRCC.