Literature DB >> 32132149

Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits.

Daniel R Richardson1,2, Norah L Crossnohere3,4, Jaein Seo5, Elihu Estey6,7, Bernadette O'Donoghue8, B Douglas Smith9, John F P Bridges3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The recent expansion of treatment options in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has necessitated a greater understanding of patient preferences for treatment benefits, about which little is known.
METHODS: We sought to quantify and assess heterogeneity of the preferences of AML patients for treatment outcomes. An AML-specific discrete choice experiment (DCE) was developed involving multiple stakeholders. Attributes included in the DCE were event-free survival (EFS), complete remission (CR), time in the hospital, short-term side effects, and long-term side effects. Continuously coded conditional, stratified, and latent-class logistic regressions were used to model preferences of 294 patients with AML.
RESULTS: Most patients were white (89.4%) and in remission (95.0%). A 10% improvement in the chance of CR was the most meaningful offered benefit (P < 0.001). Patients were willing to trade up to 22 months of EFS or endure 8.7 months in the hospital or a two-step increase in long-term side effects to gain a 10% increase in chance of CR. Patients diagnosed at 60 years or older (21.6%) more strongly preferred to avoid short-term side effects (P = 0.03). Latent class analysis showed significant differences of preferences across gender and insurance status.
CONCLUSIONS: In this national sample of mostly AML survivors, patients preferred treatments that maximized chance at remission; however, significant preference heterogeneity for outcomes was identified. Age and gender may affect patients' preferences. IMPACT: Survivor preferences for outcomes can inform patient-focused drug development and shared decision-making. Further studies are necessary to investigate the use of DCEs to guide treatment for individual patients. ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32132149      PMCID: PMC7196442          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  37 in total

1.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 3.  Selecting initial treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia in older adults.

Authors:  Nikolai A Podoltsev; Maximilian Stahl; Amer M Zeidan; Steven D Gore
Journal:  Blood Rev       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 8.250

4.  Real-world experience of venetoclax with azacitidine for untreated patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Amanda C Winters; Jonathan A Gutman; Enkhtsetseg Purev; Molly Nakic; Jennifer Tobin; Stephanie Chase; Jeff Kaiser; Lindsey Lyle; Chelsey Boggs; Keri Halsema; Jeffrey T Schowinsky; Julie Rosser; Mark D Ewalt; Bradford Siegele; Vishal Rana; Steven Schuster; Diana Abbott; Brett M Stevens; Craig T Jordan; Clayton Smith; Daniel A Pollyea
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2019-10-22

5.  Late relapses in acute myeloid leukemia: analysis of characteristics and outcome.

Authors:  Dushyant Verma; Hagop Kantarjian; Stefan Faderl; Susan O'Brien; Sherry Pierce; Khanh Vu; Emil Freireich; Michael Keating; Jorge Cortes; Farhad Ravandi
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2010-05

6.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 7.  Frontline Therapy of CLL: Evolving Treatment Paradigm.

Authors:  Craig S Boddy; Shuo Ma
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.952

8.  Enasidenib in mutant IDH2 relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Eytan M Stein; Courtney D DiNardo; Daniel A Pollyea; Amir T Fathi; Gail J Roboz; Jessica K Altman; Richard M Stone; Daniel J DeAngelo; Ross L Levine; Ian W Flinn; Hagop M Kantarjian; Robert Collins; Manish R Patel; Arthur E Frankel; Anthony Stein; Mikkael A Sekeres; Ronan T Swords; Bruno C Medeiros; Christophe Willekens; Paresh Vyas; Alessandra Tosolini; Qiang Xu; Robert D Knight; Katharine E Yen; Sam Agresta; Stephane de Botton; Martin S Tallman
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 25.476

Review 9.  New therapeutic strategies for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Kamal Menghrajani; Martin S Tallman
Journal:  Curr Opin Hematol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 3.218

10.  New drug approvals in acute myeloid leukemia: what's the best end point?

Authors:  E Estey; M Othus; S J Lee; F R Appelbaum; R P Gale
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 11.528

View more
  4 in total

1.  Patient, Family Member and Physician Perspectives and Experiences with AML Treatment Decision-Making.

Authors:  Thomas W LeBlanc; Nigel H Russell; Loriana Hernandez-Aldama; Charlotte Panter; Timothy J Bell; Verna Welch; Diana Merino Vega; Louise O'Hara; Julia Stein; Melissa Barclay; Francois Peloquin; Andrew Brown; Jasmine Healy; Lucy Morgan; Adam Gater; Ryan Hohman; Karim Amer; Dawn Maze; Roland B Walter
Journal:  Oncol Ther       Date:  2022-06-13

2.  Development of a Patient-Centered Preference Tool for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Amy Cole; Daniel R Richardson; Karthik Adapa; Amro Khasawneh; Norah Crossnohere; John F P Bridges; Lukasz Mazur
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2022-06-29

3.  Improving personalized treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer: The necessity of eliciting patient preferences.

Authors:  Daniel R Richardson; Kah Poh Loh
Journal:  J Geriatr Oncol       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 3.929

Review 4.  Patterns of undertreatment among patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML): considerations for patients eligible for non-intensive chemotherapy (NIC).

Authors:  Elizabeth Hubscher; Slaven Sikirica; Timothy Bell; Andrew Brown; Verna Welch; Alexander Russell-Smith; Paul D'Amico
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 4.553

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.