16P - Patient and healthcare practitioner preferences in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treatment: A discrete choice experiment

Background

This study aimed to assess preferences of patients and healthcare practitioners (HCPs) regarding treatment attributes for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in the Asia-Pacific region.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in Australia, Korea, Philippines, Japan, and Taiwan, with 115 patients who self-reported a diagnosis of early-stage TNBC and 86 HCPs. Key attributes relevant to TNBC treatment decision-making were verified through qualitative interviews with clinical experts. A D-efficient fractional-factorial design was employed to create 15 online choice sets with seven key attributes: disease-free/event-free survival (DFS/EFS), pathological complete response (pCR), chance of undergoing breast conserving surgery after receiving anticancer treatment, febrile neutropenia, peripheral sensory neuropathy, diarrhea, and irreversible endocrine-related adverse events (AEs) requiring lifelong medication. A mixed logit model was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels, which were then used to compute the relative importance score (RIS) for each attribute.

Results

Median age of patients were 44.0 (interquartile range 38.0-56.5) years. 68% of patients were married, 77% had children, 40% employed full-time and 70% had a college degree. 46% of patients were diagnosed below the age of 40. Among the HCPs, 58% were medical oncologists and the remaining breast or general surgeons. PCR, DFS/EFS, and peripheral sensory neuropathy were the three most important attributes in both HCP and patient groups. pCR had the highest weighted preference among patients and HCPs (RIS, 28.46 and 32.86, respectively). In general, patients assigned greater weight to safety attributes compared to HCPs, while HCPs assigned more weight to efficacy attributes than patients. Surgeons assigned more weight for irreversible endocrine-related AEs than medical oncologists (RIS, 14.4 vs. 5.4).

Conclusions

Overall, patients and HCP preferences were aligned in ranking for efficacy and safety attributes tested. Differences in preferences within the regions were notable.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

IQVIA Solutions Asia Pte. Ltd.

Funding

MSD International GmbH, Singapore Branch.

Disclosure

J. Lai, Y. Antill, K.H. Jung, C. Shimizu, M.L. Abesamis Tiambeng: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: MSD. E.M. Tan, S. Qu: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment, IQVIA was commissioned to carry out this study.: IQVIA Asia Pacific. C. Spiteri, S.Y. Ihm, D. Hsu: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: MSD. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.