223P - Patient and healthcare practitioner preferences for treatments in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Background

Given the multiple treatment choices for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), it is important to understand the treatment preferences of patients and physicians for the treatment of advanced RCC. This study aimed to understand patients’ and physicians’ preferences that influence their treatment choices for advanced RCC.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted for 16 physicians and 10 advanced RCC patients in South Korea, Australia, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Physicians and patients each ranked 36 attributes related to treatment efficacy, side effects and mode of administration (score, 1-10) in terms of their preference for the treatment of advanced RCC. The scores of the top 10 attributes were aggregated among physicians and among patients to derive the overall score.

Results

For attributes related to treatment efficacy, physicians ranked years of survival (score =78), progression-free survival (score =78) and overall survival at 1 year (score =71) as most important, while patients ranked progression-free survival (score =54), years of survival (score =45), and duration of response (score =39) as most important. For attributes related to treatment side effects, physicians ranked grade 3 or 4 pneumonitis (score =40), chance of admission due to treatment side effects (score =37) and grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal perforation (score = 33) as most important, while patients ranked grade 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease (score = 20), grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression (score =19) and chance of admission due to treatment side effects (score =17) as most important. The attributes prioritized by physicians did not differ by favourable vs intermediate/poor risk patient groups. Physicians and patients did not rank attributes related to mode of administration within the top 10.

Conclusions

Physicians and patients have slightly different preferences while making treatment choices. This study demonstrates that physicians and patients prioritized attributes related to treatment efficacy compared to side effects. A more effective dialogue between HCP and patient is needed to help decision-making in selecting the most appropriate treatment for advanced RCC.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

IQVIA Solutions Asia Pte. Ltd.

Funding

MSD International GmbH, Singapore Branch.

Disclosure

N. Oliveira, B.C.W. Li, M. Kim, I. Park, Y. Su, C.K. Yang, A. Zhang, K.C.W. Wong: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: MSD. A. Dsouza: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: MSD Singapore. S. Chua, E.M. Tan: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment, Commissioned to carry out this study (IQVIA): IQVIA Asia Pacific, Singapore. C. Spiteri: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: MSD Australia.