Scholarlink

Introduction <p>The management of early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC has undergone a paradigm shift with the availability of multiple treatment options. However, there is limited understanding about the treatment attributes preferred by patients and physicians in these settings in Asia-Pacific.</p> Methods <p>This cross-sectional web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey aimed to assess treatment preferences for early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC in Asia-Pacific. Participants were patients (aged ≥ 18 years, RCC: n=50, UC: n=50) and physicians (medical oncologists: n=46; urologists: n=44). The DCE included 8 attributes covering efficacy, risks of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and mode of administration (MOA). Relative preference weights, relative importance (RI), and minimum acceptable benefit were analyzed using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression.</p> Results <p>Both patients and physicians placed higher importance on efficacy attributes: one-year disease-free survival (DFS) (patients: RI=25.1%; physicians: RI=36.3%) and overall survival (OS) (patients: RI=27.6%; physicians: RI=22.1%). Among patients, this was followed by risks of treatment-related fatigue (RI=9.9%), and risk of long-term/permanent TRAEs (RI=9.4%). For physicians, it was risk of treatment-related skin rash (RI=8.5%) and risk of treatment-related fatigue (RI=8.0%). Patients would accept a 5-35% risk increase in treatment-related fatigue for 11.4% DFS/0.67-year OS increase, and a 1-15% risk increase in long-term/permanent TRAE (1%-15%) for 10.8% DFS/0.64-year OS increase. Physicians would accept 5-25% risk increases in treatment-related skin rash for 8.0% DFS/0.74-year OS increase and in fatigue for 6.1% DFS/0.56-year OS increase. Most patients (87-92%) and physicians (88-96%) would initiate earlier systemic treatment for UC/RCC than at the advanced or metastatic stage.</p> Conclusion <p>Patients and physicians valued efficacy attributes over TRAE-attributes. Both groups would trade higher risks for greater efficacy, though these trade-offs vary based on TRAE type. This indicates a need for shared decision-making for early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC in Asia-Pacific.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Treatment preferences of patients and physicians for early-stage and adjuvant treatment of urothelial carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma in Asia-Pacific: a discrete choice experiment

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月16日

查看全文
  • Edmund Chiong,
  • Lavinia Spain,
  • Manish I. Patel,
  • Teng-Aik Ong,
  • Shian Shiang Wang,
  • Yu-Chieh Tsai,
  • Eddie Chan,
  • Lawrence Vandervoort,
  • Anilda D’Souza,
  • Sameer Gokhale,
  • Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh

摘要

Introduction

The management of early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC has undergone a paradigm shift with the availability of multiple treatment options. However, there is limited understanding about the treatment attributes preferred by patients and physicians in these settings in Asia-Pacific.

Methods

This cross-sectional web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey aimed to assess treatment preferences for early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC in Asia-Pacific. Participants were patients (aged ≥ 18 years, RCC: n=50, UC: n=50) and physicians (medical oncologists: n=46; urologists: n=44). The DCE included 8 attributes covering efficacy, risks of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and mode of administration (MOA). Relative preference weights, relative importance (RI), and minimum acceptable benefit were analyzed using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression.

Results

Both patients and physicians placed higher importance on efficacy attributes: one-year disease-free survival (DFS) (patients: RI=25.1%; physicians: RI=36.3%) and overall survival (OS) (patients: RI=27.6%; physicians: RI=22.1%). Among patients, this was followed by risks of treatment-related fatigue (RI=9.9%), and risk of long-term/permanent TRAEs (RI=9.4%). For physicians, it was risk of treatment-related skin rash (RI=8.5%) and risk of treatment-related fatigue (RI=8.0%). Patients would accept a 5-35% risk increase in treatment-related fatigue for 11.4% DFS/0.67-year OS increase, and a 1-15% risk increase in long-term/permanent TRAE (1%-15%) for 10.8% DFS/0.64-year OS increase. Physicians would accept 5-25% risk increases in treatment-related skin rash for 8.0% DFS/0.74-year OS increase and in fatigue for 6.1% DFS/0.56-year OS increase. Most patients (87-92%) and physicians (88-96%) would initiate earlier systemic treatment for UC/RCC than at the advanced or metastatic stage.

Conclusion

Patients and physicians valued efficacy attributes over TRAE-attributes. Both groups would trade higher risks for greater efficacy, though these trade-offs vary based on TRAE type. This indicates a need for shared decision-making for early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC in Asia-Pacific.