Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Novel Agents in First-Line Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Commonalities and Disconnects

References

• Key statistics for chronic lymphocytic leukemia [page on the Internet]. American Cancer Society; January 8, 2020. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/chronic-lymphocytic-leukemia/about/key-statistics.html. Accessed June 15, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Chen Q, Jain N, Ayer T, et al. Economic burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the era of oral targeted therapies in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(2):166–174. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2856
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallek M. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment. Am J Hematol. 2019;94(11):1266–1287. doi:10.1002/ajh.25595
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(9):883–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le H, Pendergraft T, Wahlstrom SK, et al. Understanding clinician and patient preferences about novel agents in chronic lymphocytic leukemia [abstract]. Blood. 2019;134(Suppl1):4730. doi:10.1182/blood-2019-129606
   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(1):3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2011;14(4):403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger JA, Tedeschi A, Barr PM, et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. New Eng J Med. 2015;373:2425–2437. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1509388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrd JC, Brown JR, O’Brien S, et al. Ibrutinib versus ofatumumab in previously treated chronic lymphoid leukemia. New Eng J Med. 2014;371:213–223. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1400376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roeker LE, Fox CP, Eyre TA, et al. Tumor lysis, adverse events, and dose adjustments in 297 venetoclax-treated CLL patients in routine clinical practice. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(14):4264–4270. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eek D, Krohe M, Mazar I, et al. Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1609–1621. doi:10.2147/PPA.S106629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baird G, Flynn R, Baxter G, Donnelly M, Lawrrence J. Travel time and cancer care: an example of the inverse care law? Rural Remote Health. 2008;8:1003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demographic and economic trends in urban, suburban and rural communities [internet]. Pew Research Center; 2018. Available from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/. Accessed April 10, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Mansfield C, Masaquel A, Sutphin J, et al. Patients’ priorities in selecting chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments. Blood Adv. 2017;1(24):2176–2185. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2017007294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2016;40:17–23. doi:10.1016/j.leukres.2015.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boqué C, Abad M, Moreno C, et al. Healthcare professionals’ preferences for the treatment selection of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): the Prelic Study [abstract]. Value Health. 2017;20:A455. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.319.
   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
• Sharman JP, Banerji V, Fogliatto LM, et al. ELEVATE TN: Phase 3 study of acalabrutinib combined with obinutuzumab (O) or alone vs O plus chlorambucil (Clb) in patients (Pts) with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) [abstract]. Blood. 2019;134(Suppl1):31. doi:10.1182/blood-2019-128404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer K, Al-Sawaf O, Fink A-M, et al. Venetoclax and obinutuzumab in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2017;129(19):2702–2705. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-01-761973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farooqui MZ, Valdez J, Martyr S, et al. Ibrutinib for previously untreated and relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with TP53 aberrations: a Phase 2, single-arm trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(2):169–176. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71182-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghia P, Pluta A, Wach M, et al. Acalabrutinib vs rituximab plus idelalisib (IdR) or bendamustine (BR) by investigator choice in relapsed/refractory (RR) chronic lymphocytic leukemia: phase 3 ASCEND study [abstract]. Hematol Oncol. 2019;37:86–87. doi:10.1002/hon.54_2629.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno C, Greil R, Demirkan F, et al. Ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (iLLUMINATE): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):43–56. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30788-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tedeschi A Clinical impact of new data in B-cell malignancies from EHA and ICML 2019. Paper presented at: Annual Congress of the European Haematolgical Association; June 13–16, 2019; Amsterdam, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour JF, Kipps TJ, Eichhorst B, et al. Venetoclax–rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(12):1107–1120. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1713976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien S, Jones JA, Coutre SE, et al. Ibrutinib for patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia with 17p deletion (RESONATE-17): a phase 2, open-label, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(10):1409–1418. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30212-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mato AR, Thompson M, Allan JN, et al. Real-world outcomes and management strategies for venetoclax-treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients in the United States. Haematologica. 2018;103(9):1511–1517. doi:10.3324/haematol.2018.193615
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IMBRUVICA^® (Ibrutinib) [Package Insert]. Sunnyvale, CA: Pharmacyclics LLC; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• GAZYVA^® (Obinutuzumab) [Package Insert]. South San Francisco, CA: Genentech, Inc; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• VENCLEXTA^® (Venetoclax) [Package Insert]. North Chicago, IL: AbbVie Inc; 2016.
   Google Scholar