Patient preferences for first-line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a US survey and discrete choice experiment

Abstract

A cross-sectional online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was used to investigate first-line treatment preferences in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the United States; 141 patients (median age 35.0 years) participated. In the DCE, risk of progression at 2 years (progression free survival) had the highest relative importance to patients (31.3%) when considering first-line treatments, followed by 2-year overall survival (OS; 26.9%), on-treatment pulmonary toxicity (23.3%), and on-treatment peripheral neuropathy (18.5%). Marginal rate of substitution analyses demonstrated that a 0.44% and 0.09% increase in 2-year OS was required for patients to accept a 1% increase in the risk of disease progression at 2 years and peripheral neuropathy, respectively. A 2.6% increase in 2-year OS was needed to accept a 7% rather than a 2% risk of pulmonary toxicity. In summary, patients with cHL rated survival attributes as more important than drug-related toxicity when considering first-line treatments.

Keywords:

• Hodgkin
• discrete choice experiment
• patient preference
• first-line treatment

Acknowledgments

The editorial support for the development of this manuscript was provided by Karen Smoyer and Jon Edwards of Envision Pharma Group, which was funded by Seattle Genetics.

Disclosure statement

Joseph Feliciano and Mayvis Rebeira were employees of Seattle Genetics at the time of the research. Kerstin Müller and Rei Tao are employees of ICON plc, which has a research and consultancy agreement with Seattle Genetics. Mary He and Ellen Korol were employees of ICON plc when this study was conducted. Mehul Dalal is an employee of Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Niloufer Khan has received research funding from Gilead Sciences. Matthew Matasar has received research support and honoraria from Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, and Rocket.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by Seattle Genetics.