PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 4, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology1 citations

Patient (pt) preferences for treatment (tx) of non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (nmHSPC): A discrete choice experiment (DCE).

View Full Paper
NSNeal D. ShoreCarolina Urologic Research CenterBPBhavik J. PandyaAstellas Pharma (United States)WXWeiguang XueInstitute of Group Analysis

Key Points

  • This study aims to quantify patient preferences for treatment options in non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
  • Administered an online discrete choice experiment survey to 374 patients with non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
  • Included 14 choice cards presenting two hypothetical treatment options with varying attributes.
  • Estimated preference weights using a random parameter logit model.
  • 97% of patients preferred androgen receptor pathway inhibitors ± androgen-deprivation therapy over androgen-deprivation therapy alone.
  • The most important treatment attribute was 5-year metastasis-free survival, followed by risk of hot flashes and duration of sexual interest.

Abstract

338 Background: Prostate cancer tx guidelines recommend androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) ± androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) as an effective alternative to ADT alone for pts with high-risk biochemically recurrent nmHSPC. ARPI ± ADT offers improved efficacy and a tolerable safety profile compared with ADT alone; however, understanding which attributes pts consider most when assessing tx options is important. This study quantified pt preferences for ARPIs ± ADT vs ADT alone in pts with nmHSPC across 9 countries, using a DCE method. Methods: Using convenience sampling, an online panel-based DCE survey was developed and administered to 374 pts with nmHSPC who had undergone definitive tx. The DCE included 14 choice cards, each presenting 2 hypothetical tx options with varying levels of efficacy (metastasis-free survival MFS, tx suspension), tx-emergent adverse events (risk of fatigue, hot flashes, breast swelling), and sexual well-being (duration of interest in sex, duration of keeping erectile function). MFS was selected, as it served as a key efficacy endpoint in an nmHSPC study and is associated with overall survival. Pts were recruited from US (n = 56), Italy (n = 53), Germany (n = 52), UK (n = 43), Brazil (n = 40), France (n = 40), South Korea (n = 40), Spain (n = 40), and Australia (n = 10). Preference weights were estimated using a random parameter logit model. Relative attribute importance was derived from these weights and the corresponding attribute levels. EMBARK trial profiles for ARPI and ADT informed tx choice probabilities, and pts were assigned to the option with the highest predicted probability. Results: Median age was 66 years (IQR: 63.0–69.0). Of all pts, 245 (66%) were married/in a relationship and 109 (29%) were sexually active. Recurrence occurred in 157 (42%) pts after definitive tx. The most important attributes were 5-year MFS, risk of hot flashes, and duration of sexual interest relative to pre-tx baseline (Table). Among the pts, 363 (97%) selected ARPI ± ADT as their preferred tx option while 11 (3%) preferred ADT alone. Conclusions: In this DCE study, pts preferred ARPIs ± ADT vs ADT alone. MFS was the most significant driver of pt choices, followed by risk of hot flashes then interest in sex. These preferences suggest that ARPI-based txs may be viewed more favorably, which may reflect pts’ risk-benefit tradeoffs, favoring txs that balance clinical effectiveness, adverse events, and impact on sexual quality of life. Overall, the results support using personalized care plans for pts with nmHSPC. Attribute Relative importance, % (95% CI) 5-year MFS 28.9 (22.7, 35.2) Risk of hot flashes 18.6 (12.8, 24.5) Duration of sexual interest while on tx 17.4 (11.9, 22.9) Risk of breast swelling 11.7 (6.7, 16.8) Tx suspension 8.2 (1.5, 14.8) Duration of keeping erectile function while on tx 7.6 (2.6, 12.7) Risk of fatigue 7.5 (2.3, 12.6)

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Shore et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a7cd9dd48f933b5eeda265https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.7_suppl.338
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper