Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Attributes of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic HR Positive/HER2 Negative Breast Cancer: Discrete Choice Experiment and Best–Worst Scaling

References

• American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts & figures 2017–2018. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2017-2018.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society. Survival rates for breast cancer. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/understanding-a-breast-cancer-diagnosis/breast-cancer-survival-rates.html. Accessed August 31, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Reinert T, Barrios CH. Optimal management of hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer in 2016. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2015;7(6):304–320. doi:10.1177/1758834015608993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballinger TJ, Meier JB, Jansen VM. Current landscape of targeted therapies for hormone-receptor positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer. Front Oncol. 2018;8:1–11. doi:10.3389/fonc.2018.00308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn RS, Crown JP, Lang I, et al. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(1):25–35. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71159-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner NC, Ro J, André F, et al. Palbociclib in hormone-receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):209–219. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1505270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, et al. Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1738–1748. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1609709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle F, Beith J, Burslem K, et al. Hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer: impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors on the current treatment paradigm. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol. 2018;14:3–11. doi:10.1111/ajco.13064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraham J, Coleman R, Elias A, Holmes F, Kalinsky K, Kittaneh M. Use of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer: a roundtable discussion by The Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(1):11–20. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4783-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo Q, Lin X, Ye L, et al. Comparative efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus aromatase inhibitors versus fulvestrant for the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis. Target Oncol. 2019;14(2):139–148. doi:10.1007/s11523-019-00633-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding W, Li Z, Wang C, Ruan G, Chen L, Tu C. The CDK4/6 inhibitor in HR-positive advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(20):e10746. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000010746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrelli F, Ghidini A, Pedersini R, et al. Comparative efficacy of palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib for ER+ metastatic breast cancer: an adjusted indirect analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174(3):597–604. doi:10.1007/s10549-019-05133-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos-Esquivel A, Hernández-Steller H, Savard MF, Landaverde DU. Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment for post-menopausal metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Phase III randomized clinical trials. Breast Cancer. 2018;25(4):479–488. doi:10.1007/s12282-018-0848-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Im SA, Lu YS, Bardia A, et al. Overall survival with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:307–316. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903765
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krammer R, Heinzerling L, Slominski AT. Therapy preferences in melanoma treatment - willingness to pay and preference of quality versus length of life of patients, physicians and healthy controls. PLoS One. 2014;9:11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiBonaventura MD, Copher R, Basurto E, Faria C, Lorenzo R. Patient preferences and treatment adherence among women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Am Heal Drug Benefits. 2014;7(7):386–396.
   Google Scholar
• Hershman DL, Shao T, Kushi LH, et al. Early discontinuation and non-adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy are associated with increased mortality in women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126(2):529–537. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1132-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chirgwin JH, Giobbie-Hurder A, Coates AS, et al. Treatment adherence and its impact on disease-free survival in the breast international group 1-98 trial of tamoxifen and letrozole, alone and in sequence. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2452–2459. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8619
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Trentacosta CJ, McLear C. Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(6):506–517. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene J, Hibbard JH, Sacks R, Overton V, Parrotta CD. When patient activation levels change, health outcomes and costs change, too. Health Aff. 2015;34(3):431–437. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu FX, Witt EA, Ebbinghaus S, et al. Patient and oncologist preferences for attributes of treatments in advanced melanoma: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;14:1389–1399. doi:10.2147/PPA.S140226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uemura H, Matsubara N, Kimura G, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan: a discrete-choice experiment. BMC Urol. 2016;16:63–72. doi:10.1186/s12894-016-0182-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunneman M, Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Treatment preferences and involvement in treatment decision making of patients with endometrial cancer and clinicians. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(4):674–679. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilbridge KL, Weeks JC, Sober AJ, et al. Patient preferences for adjuvant interferon alfa-2b treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(3):812–823. doi:10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong Y-N, Egleston BL, Sachdeva K, et al. Cancer patients’ trade-offs among efficacy, toxicity, and out-of-pocket cost in the curative and noncurative setting. Med Care. 2013;51(9):838–845. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829faffd
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, 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 Heal. 2011;14(4):403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orme B. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Fourth ed. Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974:104–142.
   Google Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh E, Louviere J Separating weight and scale value: an exploration of best-attribute scaling in health economics. Paper resented at the Health Economists’ Study Group, 6 July; Brunel University London; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Shafey M, Lupichuk SM, Do T, Owen C, Stewart D. Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(7):962–969. doi:10.1038/bmt.2010.225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbuckle RB, Huber SL, Zacker C. The consequences of diarrhea occurring during chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a retrospective study. Oncologist. 2000;5(3):250–259. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.5-3-250
   Google Scholar
• Douglas SL, Daly BJ, Meropol NJ, Lipson AR. Patient-physician discordance in goals of care for patients with advanced cancer. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(6):370–379. doi:10.3747/co.26.5431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison M, Milbers K, Hudson M, Bansback N. Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e014719. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar