A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the preferences of health care professional groups and patient groups with respect to efficacy, adverse events, and administration method for targeted agents of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
METHODS: A total of 485 respondents including cancer patients and health care professionals (medical oncologists, nurses, and pharmacists) were surveyed by using a discrete choice experiment in South Korea. Through a literature review and expert consultation, six attributes--progression-free survival, four adverse events (bone marrow suppression, hand-foot skin reaction, gastrointestinal perforation, and bleeding), and administration--were selected. This study employed the conditional logit regression model.
RESULTS: The six attributes are statistically significant for the patient group and health care professional group. The two groups, however, present differences in progression-free survival, hand-foot skin reaction, gastrointestinal perforation, and administration. The relative importance of adverse events is greater for the patient group, while that of efficacy and administration is greater for the health professional group. For doctors, the relative importance of efficacy is as high as 31%, compared with 7% for the patient group. If progression-free survival is prolonged by 1 month, the acceptable level of bone marrow suppression is 1.3% for the patient group and 9.6% for doctors and that of hand-foot skin reaction is 1.0% and 11.8%, respectively, for the patient group and doctors.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates substantial differences in the preference for a targeted drug between the patient group and the health care professional group. Doctors prefer effective and orally administered drugs while patients show more reluctant attitudes about adverse events than do health care professionals.