Heterogeneity in physician and patient preferences for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Evidence from latent class analysis.

Authors

null

Caroline Vass

RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, United Kingdom

Caroline Vass , Cathy Anne Pinto , Kelley Myers , Kentaro Imai , Cooper Bussberg , Rituparna Bhattacharya , Shawna R Calhoun , Christine Poulos

Organizations

RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, United Kingdom, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

Background: To inform shared decision-making, it is important to learn how patients or physicians trade off the features of adjuvant treatments and whether there is heterogeneity within preferences. Methods: An online discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to patients with physician-confirmed renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and physician-defined intermediate high/high risk of recurrence and physicians who treat such patients. Hypothetical treatment choices were defined by median disease-free survival (DFS); 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; mode and frequency of administration; need for concomitant daily pill; treatment duration; and the risks of severe diarrhea, fatigue, and dizziness. After making an adjuvant treatment choice, respondents were presented with the opportunity to opt out of treatment. Patient and physician choice data were analyzed separately using latent class (LC) models, which identify clusters within patients and physicians making similar choices. Each class’ preference weights were used to calculate the conditional relative attribute importance. Results: LC analysis identified three classes among the 250 patients (% respondents) that placed greater relative importance on: 1) 5-year OS and opting into treatment (37.5%), 2) median DFS and opting into treatment (26.9%), and 3) treatment duration and opting out of treatment (35.5%) (Table). Among the 250 physicians, the LC analysis identified three classes that placed greater relative importance on: 1) 5-year OS and recommending treatment (37.5%), 2) median DFS and recommending treatment (37.8%), and 3) not recommending treatment (24.7%). Additionally, each LC analysis showed that the other treatment attributes evaluated were less important, but the importance varied by LC (Table). Conclusions: Heterogeneity in physician and patient preferences for RCC adjuvant therapy was found, highlighting a need for shared decision-making. Discordance within patients and physicians in the propensity to opt out of adjuvant treatment suggests patient-physician dialogue is important.

Conditional relative importance of treatment attributes by study population and latent class.

PatientsPhysicians
Class
(% Respondents)
Class 1
(37.5%)
Class 2
(26.9%)
Class 3
(35.5%)
Class 1
(37.5%)
Class 2
(37.8%)
Class 3
(24.7%)
Median DFS6.931.86.011.427.913.3
5-year OS rate54.16.513.655.719.525.8
Mode of administration3.112.219.96.78.410.1
Treatment duration2.87.119.01.510.44.2
Concomitant daily pill1.66.11.45.27.96.2
Additional risk of severe diarrhea6.013.916.14.22.713.6
Additional risk of severe fatigue12.35.313.95.916.49.3
Additional risk of severe dizziness13.217.110.09.36.817.6
Opt outa++

a If the relative importance of opting out of adjuvant treatment > 0, then no treatment was deemed to be preferred (+). DFS = disease-free survival; OS = overall survival.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session C: Renal Cell Cancer; Adrenal, Penile, Urethral and Testicular Cancers

Track

Renal Cell Cancer,Adrenal Cancer,Penile Cancer,Testicular Cancer,Urethral Cancer

Sub Track

Symptoms, Toxicities, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Whole-Person Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 6; abstr 661)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.661

Abstract #

661

Poster Bd #

G12

Abstract Disclosures