Discrete choice experiment reveals preferences for oral androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients, indicating alignment regardless of prior exposure.
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Advanced (including Drug Therapy) II (MP14)1 May 2024MP14-07 PREFERENCES FOR ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPIES BY PRIOR HORMONAL TREATMENT EXPOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE CANCER: A DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT Sean P. Collins, Jared Thorley, Agnes Hong, Sergio C. Gatoulis, Scott C. Flanders, Martine C. Maculaitis, Brett Hauber, and Marty Chakoian Sean P. CollinsSean P. Collins , Jared ThorleyJared Thorley , Agnes HongAgnes Hong , Sergio C. GatoulisSergio C. Gatoulis , Scott C. FlandersScott C. Flanders , Martine C. MaculaitisMartine C. Maculaitis , Brett HauberBrett Hauber , and Marty ChakoianMarty Chakoian View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009428.69695.82.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Patient (pt) involvement in their own treatment (Tx) decisions improves outcomes, but data on the overall pt experience with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) options for prostate cancer (PC) are limited. We quantified pt preferences for key attributes differentiating available oral and injectable ADTs and how these preferences affect the Tx choices of ADT-naïve vs ADT-experienced pts. METHODS: From February–July 2022, US men aged >40 years who reported a PC diagnosis were recruited via healthcare research panels to complete a cross-sectional survey. Pts who did not know their ADT exposure were ineligible. A discrete choice experiment assessed preferences for ADT attributes (Figure 1). Hierarchical Bayesian models estimated attribute-level preference weights. Relative importance (RI) was computed as the difference in preference weights of the most and least preferred levels of each attribute; out-of-pocket cost was held constant, as preferences for this attribute are largely influenced by personal factors (eg, insurance status). RIs were compared between pts with and without prior ADT experience (2-sample t tests). RESULTS: Of 304 pts (mean age 64.4 years), 155 were ADT-naïve and 149 were ADT-experienced. Switching from once-monthly subcutaneous injection to once-daily pill, reducing impact on interest in sexual activity, and providing faster time to testosterone (T) recovery after discontinuation had the greatest impact on preferences, each explaining>23% of the variation in Tx choice (Figure 1). These were followed by reduced risk of cardiovascular events (∼11% of variation) and need to take a pill to prevent T surge after initialization (∼7% of variation). RIs did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pts with PC preferred taking a daily pill instead of receiving injections at a doctor's office, as well as a PC Tx with less impact on libido and faster T recovery. The preferences of ADT-experienced and -naïve pts were aligned, suggesting that pts are amenable to an oral ADT option, irrespective of prior experience with injectable alternatives. These findings highlight the need for further education on different ADT options, as well as bidirectional communication between pts and providers to determine the best option for each pt. Download PPT Source of Funding: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. in collaboration with Sumitomo Pharma Switzerland GmbH © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e222 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Sean P. Collins More articles by this author Jared Thorley More articles by this author Agnes Hong More articles by this author Sergio C. Gatoulis More articles by this author Scott C. Flanders More articles by this author Martine C. Maculaitis More articles by this author Brett Hauber More articles by this author Marty Chakoian More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Collins et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: