Yasuo Sugitani1,2, Naoko Sugitani3, Shunsuke Ono4. 1. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 1-1 Nihonbashi-Muromachi 2-Chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. sugitaniyso@chugai-pharm.co.jp. 2. Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Regulation and Sciences, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. sugitaniyso@chugai-pharm.co.jp. 3. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 1-1 Nihonbashi-Muromachi 2-Chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Regulation and Sciences, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regulatory agencies as well as private organizations pursue programs that advocate patient centricity and emphasize the importance of dialog with patients. Various methods are applied to elicit the preferences of patients regarding the aspects of treatment they lend more importance to. Decisions on treatment choices are critical to patients with lung cancer because of their poor prognosis and the serious trade-off between safety and efficacy in traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of quantitative patient preference studies of patients with lung cancer. Our exhaustive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PLOS, and SpringerLink identified 15 relevant studies published from January 2000 to April 2020 that enabled us to assess the relative importance of treatment attributes according to lung cancer patients' perspective. RESULTS: The literature review revealed that patients with lung cancer tend to place a higher weight on efficacy and quality of life (QoL) attributes than on other attributes. Overall survival was found to be the most important among the efficacy attributes. The consequences of adverse events seemed less important than the possible efficacy from therapies. The clinical utility of treatment, such as the route of administration, was generally not considered important. It remains inconclusive whether sociodemographic factors and/or medical history affect the relative importance of a patient's preference. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review clarified that patients generally prefer a better efficacy profile to a better safety profile, which underscores the importance of improved benefits in anti-lung cancer drug development.
BACKGROUND: Regulatory agencies as well as private organizations pursue programs that advocate patient centricity and emphasize the importance of dialog with patients. Various methods are applied to elicit the preferences of patients regarding the aspects of treatment they lend more importance to. Decisions on treatment choices are critical to patients with lung cancer because of their poor prognosis and the serious trade-off between safety and efficacy in traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of quantitative patient preference studies of patients with lung cancer. Our exhaustive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PLOS, and SpringerLink identified 15 relevant studies published from January 2000 to April 2020 that enabled us to assess the relative importance of treatment attributes according to lung cancerpatients' perspective. RESULTS: The literature review revealed that patients with lung cancer tend to place a higher weight on efficacy and quality of life (QoL) attributes than on other attributes. Overall survival was found to be the most important among the efficacy attributes. The consequences of adverse events seemed less important than the possible efficacy from therapies. The clinical utility of treatment, such as the route of administration, was generally not considered important. It remains inconclusive whether sociodemographic factors and/or medical history affect the relative importance of a patient's preference. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review clarified that patients generally prefer a better efficacy profile to a better safety profile, which underscores the importance of improved benefits in anti-lung cancer drug development.
Authors: Deborah Marshall; John F P Bridges; Brett Hauber; Ruthanne Cameron; Lauren Donnalley; Ken Fyie; F Reed Johnson Journal: Patient Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Nancy E Davidson; Dana S Wollins; Courtney Tyne; Douglas W Blayney; Diane Blum; Adam P Dicker; Patricia A Ganz; J Russell Hoverman; Robert Langdon; Gary H Lyman; Neal J Meropol; Therese Mulvey; Lee Newcomer; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Blase Polite; Derek Raghavan; Gregory Rossi; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag; Thomas J Smith; Peter P Yu; Clifford A Hudis; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heather L Benz; Ting-Hsuan Joyce Lee; Jui-Hua Tsai; John F P Bridges; Sara Eggers; Megan Moncur; Fadia T Shaya; Ira Shoulson; Erica S Spatz; Leslie Wilson; Anindita Saha Journal: Patient Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Douwe Postmus; Sarah Richard; Nathalie Bere; Gert van Valkenhoef; Jayne Galinsky; Eric Low; Isabelle Moulon; Maria Mavris; Tomas Salmonsson; Beatriz Flores; Hans Hillege; Francesco Pignatti Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-10-27
Authors: Na Tosha N Gatson; Maria L Boccia; Kerianne R Taylor; Jada K O Mack; Ekokobe Fonkem Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Roberto Aringhieri; Patrick Hirsch; Marion S Rauner; Melanie Reuter-Oppermanns; Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann Journal: Cent Eur J Oper Res Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Hiba El Masri; Treasure M McGuire; Christine Dalais; Mieke van Driel; Helen Benham; Samantha A Hollingworth Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2022-04-01