Background: We aimed to elicit treatment preferences in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (r/r MCL). Materials & methods: A discrete-choice experiment comprising six attributes (‘overall survival’, ‘progression-free survival’, ‘fatigue’, ‘nausea’, ‘risk of serious infections’ and ‘treatment administration’) was administered to r/r MCL patients, physicians and the general population (GP) in Sweden and Germany. Results: 18 patients, 68 physicians and 191 GP members participated. ‘Overall survival’ was the most important attribute, followed by ‘risk of serious infection’ and ‘progression-free survival’ among physicians and the GP. In contrast, ‘treatment administration’ was the second most important attribute to patients, followed by ‘risk of serious infection.’ Conclusion: Preferences for characteristics differentiating treatments of r/r MCL varies between patients, physicians and members of the GP.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Dreyling M , Campo E , Hermine O et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed mantle cell lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 28(Suppl. 4), iv62–iv71 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. McKay P , Leach M , Jackson R , Cook G , Rule S . British Committee for Standards In H . Guidelines for the investigation and management of mantle cell lymphoma. Br. J. Haematol. 159(4), 405–426 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Vose JM . Mantle cell lymphoma: 2012 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and clinical management. Am. J. Hematol. 87(6), 604–609 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Wang Y , Ma S . Risk factors for etiology and prognosis of mantle cell lymphoma. Expert Rev. Hematol. 7(2), 233–243 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Dreyling M , Thieblemont C , Gallamini A et al. ESMO Consensus conferences: guidelines on malignant lymphoma. Part 2: marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Ann. Oncol. 24(4), 857–877 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Parrott M , Rule S , Kelleher M , Wilson J . A systematic review of treatments of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 18(1), 13–25 (2018). • Provides an overview of mantle cell lymphoma treatments.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Say RE , Thomson R . The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions – challenges for doctors. BMJ 327(7414), 542–545 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Politi MC , Studts JL , Hayslip JW . Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know? Oncologist 17(1), 91–100 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Bruera E , Sweeney C , Calder K , Palmer L , Benisch-Tolley S . Patient preferences versus physician perceptions of treatment decisions in cancer care. J. Clin. Oncol. 19(11), 2883–2885 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Bridges JF , Hauber AB , Marshall D et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14(4), 403–413 (2011). •• A good research practice guide to the conduct of discrete choice experiments.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Hauber AB , Gonzalez JM , Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 19(4), 300–315 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Lloyd A , Penson D , Dewilde S , Kleinman L . Eliciting patient preferences for hormonal therapy options in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 11(2), 153–159 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Beusterien K , Grinspan J , Tencer T , Brufsky A , Visovsky C . Patient preferences for chemotherapies used in breast cancer. Int. J. Women Health 4, 279–287 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Hurvitz SA , Lalla D , Crosby RD , Mathias SD . Use of the metastatic breast cancer progression (MBC-P) questionnaire to assess the value of progression-free survival for women with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 142(3), 603–609 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Muhlbacher AC , Nubling M . Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur. J. Health Econ. 12(3), 193–203 (2011). • Preference study in a hematological cancer.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Landfeldt E , Eriksson J , Ireland S et al. Patient, physician, and general population preferences for treatment characteristics in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a conjoint analysis. Leuk. Res. 40, 17–23 (2016). •• Similar study for comparative results in chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatment preferences.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Bridges JF , Mohamed AF , Finnern HW , Woehl A , Hauber AB . Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer 77(1), 224–231 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Mohamed AF , Hauber AB , Neary MP . Patient benefit-risk preferences for targeted agents in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 29(11), 977–988 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Muhlbacher AC , Bethge S . Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur. J. Health Econ. 16(6), 657–670 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Liu FX , Witt EA , Ebbinghaus S , Dibonaventura Beyer G , Basurto E , Joseph RW . Patient and oncology nurse preferences for the treatment options in advanced melanoma: a discrete choice experiment. Cancer Nurs. 42(1), E52–E59 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Shafey M , Lupichuk SM , Do T , Owen C , Stewart DA . Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 46(7), 962–969 (2011). •• Comparative preference results in a study conducted among different stakeholders.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Park MH , Jo C , Bae EY , Lee EK . A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea. Value Health 15(6), 933–939 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Hofheinz R , Clouth J , Borchardt-Wagner J et al. Patient preferences for palliative treatment of locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: a choice-based conjoint analysis study from Germany. BMC Cancer 16(1), 937 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. McQuellon RP , Muss HB , Hoffman SL , Russell G , Craven B , Yellen SB . Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a study of women with early-stage breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 13(4), 858–868 (1995).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Mansfield C , Masaquel A , Sutphin J et al. Patients' priorities in selecting chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments. Blood Adv. 1(24), 2176–2185 (2017). •• Preference study in a hematological cancer.
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 16, No. 13

Metrics

Downloaded 118 times

History

Received 7 January 2020

Accepted 18 March 2020

Published online 15 April 2020

Published in print May 2020

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

J Eriksson, E Landfeldt and M Gaudig designed the study, the questionnaire and the discrete choice experiment. J Eriksson coordinated the targeted literature review and the interviews. C Jackson and E Wyatt conducted the qualitative analysis and coordinated recruitment. E Landfeldt developed the experimental design, and implemented and executed all statistical analyses. J Eriksson and E Landfeldt led the interpretation of findings with input from the other authors. J Eriksson and E Landfeldt drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the decision to submit for publication.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the contributions made by the participating patients, physicians, and members of the general population. The authors acknowledge the valuable feedback provided during the study design and manuscript development from P-O Andersson and C Tapprich, and the study input of P Musingarimi. The authors also acknowledge Lightspeed All Global and Adelphi Research for their contribution to the set-up of the study and collection of data.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The study was funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. M Gaudig and S Ireland are employees of Janssen, pharmaceutical companies of Johnson & Johnson. J Eriksson and E Landfeldt are employed by ICON plc, a contract research organization conducting research on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. C Jackson and E Wyatt are employed by Adelphi Research, a market research agency paid to conduct the primary research in this study. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

All study participants provided informed consent to participate in the study, and ethics approval was granted by the Freiburger Ethik Kommission International (FEKI). The authors state that they have obtained appropriate institutional review board approval. In addition informed consent has been obtained from the participants involved.

PDF download

Stated preferences for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma treatments in Sweden and Germany

Abstract

References