The effect of information on preferences for treatments of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

References

• American Cancer Society. What are the key statistics about kidney cancer? 2015. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/kidneycancer/detailedguide/kidney-cancer-adult-key-statistics [Last accessed 21 December 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:1374-403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karumanchi SA, Merchan J, Sukhatme VP. Renal cancer: molecular mechanisms and newer therapeutic options. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2002;11:37-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janzen NK, Kim HL, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS. Surveillance after radical or partial nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma and management of recurrent disease. The Urol Clin 2003;30:843-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam JS, Leppert JT, Belldegrun AS, Figlin RA. Novel approaches in the therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 2005;23:202-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coppin C, Porzsolt F, Awa A, et al. Immunotherapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;1:CD001425
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko JJ, Choueiri TK, Rini BI, et al. First-, second-, third-line therapy for mRCC: benchmarks for trial design from the IMDC. Br J Canc 2014;110:1917-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soerensen AV, Donskov F, Hermann GG, et al. Improved overall survival after implementation of targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the Danish Renal Cancer Group (DARENCA) study-2. Eur J Canc 2014;50:553-62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escudier B, Porta C, Schmidinger M, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014;25(Suppl 3):iii49-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN Guidelines Insights. Kidney Cancer, Version 3.2015 Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015;13:151-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Castellano D, Ravaud A, Schmidinger M, et al. Therapy management with sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: key concepts and the impact of clinical biomarkers. Canc Treat Rev 2013;39:230-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidinger M, Arnold D, Szczylik C, et al. Optimizing the use of sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an update from clinical practice. Canc Investig 2010;28:856-64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie A, Askari A, Nachiappan S, et al. A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2015;17:17-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Niers EJ, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Patients’ preferences for surgical management of esophageal cancer: a discrete choice experiment. World J Surg 2015;39:2492-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Neary MP. Patient benefit–risk preferences for targeted agents in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. PharmacoEconomics 2011;29:977-88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 2012;15:933-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plimack ER, Hudes GR. Selecting targeted therapies for patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2011;9:997-1006; quiz 7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong MK, Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, et al. Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Med Econ 2012;15:1139-48
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Di Fiore F, Rigal O, Menager C, et al. Severe clinical toxicities are correlated with survival in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib and sorafenib. Br J Canc 2011;105:1811-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelson MD, Cohen DP, Li S, et al. Hand–foot syndrome as a potential biomarker of efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(Suppl 7):abstr 320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poprach A, Pavlik T, Melichar B, et al. Skin toxicity and efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a national registry-based study. Ann Oncol 2012;23:3137-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donskov F, Michaelson MD, Puzanov I, et al. Sunitinib-associated hypertension and neutropenia as efficacy biomarkers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. Br J Canc 2015;113:1571-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rini BI, Cohen DP, Lu DR, et al. Hypertension as a biomarker of efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Natl Canc Inst 2011;103:763-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soerensen AV, Geertsen PF, Christensen IJ, et al. A five-factor biomarker profile obtained week 4–12 of treatment for improved prognostication in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from DARENCA study 2. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 2016;55:341-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis MP, Hutson TE, Goldstein D, et al. Asthenia and fatigue as potential biomarkers of sunitinib efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Canc 2011;47(Suppl 1):S135(poster 1139)
   Google Scholar
• Donskov F, Carus A, Barrios CH, et al. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia during treatment as biomarkers of sunitinib efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Eur J Canc 2011;47(Suppl 1):S135(poster 1141)
   Google Scholar
• Rini BI, Melichar B, Fishman MN, et al. Axitinib dose titration: analyses of exposure, blood pressure and clinical response from a randomized phase II study in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2015;26:1372-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yada M, Masumoto A, Motomura K, et al. Indicators of sorafenib efficacy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:12581-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez JM, Hauber AB, Johnson FR. Estimating conditional certainty equivalents using choice-experiment data. J Choice Modeling 2015;15:14-25
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundhede T, Jacobsen JB, Hanley N, et al. Incorporating outcome uncertainty and prior outcome beliefs in stated preferences. Land Economics 2015;91:296-316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Hauber AB, et al. Physicians’ stated trade-off preferences for chronic hepatitis B treatment outcomes in Germany, France, Spain, Turkey, and Italy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;24:419-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Hauber AB, et al. Do patients and physicians have similar preferences for chronic hepatitis B treatment outcomes in Turkey? Flora J Infect Dis Clin Microbiol 2012;17:29-38
   Google Scholar
• Eichler HG. Regulatory decision-making in the context of personalized medicine: consequences for authorization and pharmacovigilance. 2nd Annual Health Economics and Personalized Medicine Symposium. Luxembourg, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Delea TE, Khuu A, Heng DY, et al. Association between treatment effects on disease progression end points and overall survival in clinical studies of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Br J Canc 2012;107:1059-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heng DY, Xie W, Bjarnason GA, et al. Progression-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with contemporary targeted therapy. Cancer 2011;117:2637-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hotte SJ, Bjarnason GA, Heng DY, et al. Progression-free survival as a clinical trial endpoint in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Curr Oncol 2011;18(Suppl 2):S11-S19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutman SI, Piper M, Grant MD, et al. Progression-free survival: what does it mean for psychological well-being or quality of life? Methods research report. (Prepared by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10058-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC074-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2013. Available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm [Last accessed 20 April 2016]
   Google Scholar
• Escudier B, Pluzanska A, Koralewski P, et al. Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial. Lancet 2007;370:2103-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2013;369:722-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:115-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rini BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011;378:1931-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg CN, Davis ID, Mardiak J, et al. Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1061-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC). Patient centered benefit–risk assessment. 2015. Available at: http://mdic.org/mdicx/#PatientRisk [Last accessed 21 December 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Stafinski T, Menon D, Nardelli A, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial design: results of the opinions of patients on treatment implications of new studies (OPTIONS) project. Am Heart J 2015;169:122-31 e22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. 2010. Available at: https://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010.pdf [Last accessed 12 April 2016]
   Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld W, Tobias F, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 1994;31:545-57
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013;16:3-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beusterien K, Grinspan J, Kuchuk I, et al. Use of conjoint analysis to assess breast cancer patient preferences for chemotherapy side effects. Oncologist 2014;19:127-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghavrao DW, Chitturi P. Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Models and Designs. Boca Raton, FL: CTC Press, 2010
   Google Scholar
• Escudier B, Porta C, Bono P, et al. Randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial assessing treatment preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: PISCES Study. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1412-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Jensen SE, Hahn EA, et al. Fatigue in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving sunitinib on an intermittent versus continuous dosing schedule in a randomized phase II trial. Canc Med 2014;3:1353-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marta-Pedroso C, Freitas H, Domingos T. Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol Econ 2007;62:388-98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen JS. Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay survey: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Res Energy Econ 2011;33:119-29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. 2010. Available at: http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf [Last accessed 21 December 2015]
   Google Scholar