High-dose chemotherapy for patients with stage III breast cancer with homologous recombination deficiency: a discrete choice experiment among healthcare providers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40276Keywords:
Breast neoplasms, Homologous Recombination, BRCA1 Protein, BRCA2 Protein, Discrete Choice Experiment, Conjoint Analysis, Implementation ScienceAbstract
Background and purpose: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) is currently under investigation as a potential therapy for patients with stage III HER2-negative breast cancer with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). In addition to survival, the impact on short- and long-term side effects might influence the uptake of HDCT by healthcare professionals. As part of the SUBITO trial, we investigated healthcare professionals’ treatment (outcome) preferences for patients with HRD stage III HER2-negative breast cancer and established how healthcare professionals make trade-offs between these treatment outcomes.
Patients/material and methods: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which healthcare professionals were asked to choose repeatedly between scenarios with two treatment options (HDCT or standard of care (SOC)) that varied in outcome with respect to 10-year overall survival (OS), short-term toxicity, long-term cognitive impairment, and premature menopause. We analysed treatment preferences, relative importance, and trade-offs using a multinomial logistic model.
Results and interpretation: Thirty-five of the 151 dedicated breast cancer professionals with extensive experience in treating breast cancer patients completed the survey. The 10-year OS and long-term cognitive impairment were the most important attributes. The results indicate a requirement of 10.4% and 25.1% absolute additional improvement in the 10-year survival rate to justify accepting moderate or severe long-term cognitive impairment as a trade-off, respectively. Therefore, we found in our dataset that healthcare professionals expected a large improvement in 10-year OS to accept moderate to severe cognitive impairment. This information calls for further research into chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment, shared decision-making, and treatment preferences for patients with stage III breast cancer.
Downloads
References
Vollebergh MA, Lips EH, Nederlof PM, Wessels LFA, Schmidt MK, van Beers EH, et al. An aCGH classifier derived from BRCA1-mutated breast cancer and benefit of high-dose platinum-based chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer pa-tients. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1561–70.
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq624
Schouten PC, Marmé F, Aulmann S, Sinn H, van Essen HF, Yistra B, et al. Breast cancers with a BRCA1-like DNA copy number profile recur less often than expected af-ter high-dose alkylating chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:763–70.
https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1894
Schouten PC, Gluz O, Harbeck N, Mohrmann S, Diallo-Danebrock R, Pelz E, et al. BRCA1-like profile predicts benefit of tandem high dose epirubicin-cyclophospamide-thiotepa in high risk breast cancer patients randomized in the WSG-AM01 trial. Int J Cancer. 2016;139:882–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30078
Bouwman P, Jonkers J. The effects of deregulated DNA damage signalling on cancer chemotherapy response and resistance. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:587–98.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3342
The Netherlands Cancer Institute. Substantially improving the cure rate of high-risk BRCA1-like Breast Cancer (Subito). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02810743. Updated March 29, 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 07]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT0281074
Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:79–85.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990882
Bauer MS, Kirchner JA. Implementation science: what is it and why should I care? Psychi-atry Res. 2020;283:1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.025
Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50:217–26.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 1st ed. New York City: Free Press; 1962.
Salloum RG, Shenkman EA, Louviere JJ, Chambers DA. Application of discrete choice ex-periments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12:1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0675-8
Lobb R, Colditz GA. Implementation science and its application to population health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:235–51.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114444
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare de-cision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004
Kruk ME, Paczkowski M, Mbaruku G, de Pinho H, Galea S. Women’s preferences for place of delivery in rural Tanzania: a population-based discrete choice experiment. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:1666–72.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.146209
Struik MHL, Koster F, Schuit AJ, Nugteren R, Veldwijk J, Lambooij MS. The preferences of users of electronic medical records in hospitals: quantifying the relative im-portance of barriers and facilitators of an innovation. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-69
van Helvoort-Postulart D, van der Weijden T, Dellaert BG, de Kok M, von Meyenfeldt MF, Dirksen CD. Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experi-ments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation re-search: a questionnaire survey. Implement Sci. 2009;4:1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-10
De Bekker-Grob EW, Bliemer MCJ, Donkers B, Essink-Bok M-L, Korfage IJ, Roobol MJ, et al. Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:663–40.
https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.370
Aning JJ, Wassersug RJ, Goldenberg SL. Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention re-gret. Curr Oncol. 2012;19:37–44.
https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.1287
Emberton M. Medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: physician and patient preferences and satisfaction. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64:1425–35.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02463.x
Verbeek JGE, de Jong VMT, Wijnja HM, Jager A, Linn SC, Retèl VP, et al. High-dose chemo-therapy with stem cell rescue to treat stage III homologous deficient breast cancer: factors influencing clinical implementation. BMC Cancer. 2023;23:1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10412-x
Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research prac-tices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J. 2000;320:1530–3.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530
Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. 1st ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.
Schagen SB, Tsvetkov AS, Compter A, Wefel JS. Cognitive adverse effects of chemothera-py and immunotherapy: are interventions within reach? Nat Rev Neurol. 2022;18:173–85.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00617-2
Poggio F, Levaggi A, Lambertini M. Chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure and its prevention in premenopausal breast cancer patients. Expert Rev Qual Life Cancer Care. 2016;1:5–7.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23809000.2016.1139458
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 4.0. NIH publication 09-7473. Published May 29, 2009; Revised June 14, 2010. [Accessed August 14, 2024.] Available from: https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03/Archive/CTCAE_4.0_2009-05-29_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf.
Vliek S, Jager A, Jongen-Lavrencic M, Kroep JR, Gort EH, Tjan-Heijnen CVG, et al. SUBITO trial: can we improve the cure rate of stage III breast cancer with BRCA func-tion loss substantially using intensified alkylating chemotherapy with autolo-gous stem cell transplantation? Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Oncologie. 2018;15:316–20.
Robson ME, Tung N, Conte P, Im S-A, Senkus Em Xu B, et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: Olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physi-cian’s choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:558–66.
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz012
Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Construct-ing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.
Croissant Y. Estimation of random utility models in R: the mlogit package. J Stat Softw. 2020;95:1–41.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v095.i11
McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. New York City: Ac-ademic Press; 1973.
De Bekker-Grob EW, Hol L, Donkers B, van Dam L, Habbema JDF, van Leerdam ME, et al. Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Value Health. 2010;13:315–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00670.x
Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Val-ue Health. 2016;19:300–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
Guerra RL, Castaneda L, de Albuquerque RdCR, Ferreira CBT, Corrêa FM, Fernandes RRA, et al. Patient preferences for breast cancer treatment interventions: a system-atic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2019;12:559–69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00375-w
Hollin IL, González JM, Buelt L, Ciarametaro M, Dubois RW, et al. Do patient preferences align with value frameworks? A discrete-choice experiment of patients with breast cancer. MDM Policy Pract. 2020;5:1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468320928012
Nazari A, Lopez-Valcarcel BG, Najafi S. Preferences of patients with HR+ & HER2- breast cancer regarding hormonal and targeted therapies in the first line of their metastatic stage: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021;25:7–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2020.10.002
Buijs C, Rodenhuis S, Seynaeve CM, van Hoesel QGCM, van der Wall E, Smit WHM, et al. Prospective study of long-term impact of adjuvant high-dose and conven-tional-dose chemotherapy on health-related quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5403–9.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.11.2813
Van Dam FSAM, Schagen SB, Muller MJ, Fortuyn MED, Wall E, Rodenhous S, et al. Impair-ment of cognitive function in women receiving adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:210–8.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/90.3.210
De Ruiter MB, Reneman L, Boogerd W, Veltman DJ, Caan M, Douaud G, et al. Late effects of high-dose adjuvant chemotherapy on white and gray matter in breast cancer survivors: converging results from multimodal magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;33:2971–83.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21422
Ding K, Zhang X, Zhao J, Zuo H, Bi Z, Cheng H, et al. Managing Cancer and Living Meaning-fully (CALM) intervention on chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment in breast cancer survivors. Integr Cancer Ther. 2020;19:1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735420938450
Fardell JE, Vardy J, Johnston IN, Winocur G. Chemotherapy and cognitive impairment: treatment options. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:366–76.
https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2011.112
Vass C, Boeri M, Karim S, Marshall D, Craig B, Ho K-A, et al. Accounting for preference het-erogeneity in discrete-choice experiments: an ISPOR special interest group report. Value Health. 2022;25:685–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.012
Shickh S, Leventakos K, Lewis MA, Bombard Y, Montori VM. Shared decision making in the care of patients with cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2023;43:1–13.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Joost G.E. Verbeek, Leyla Azarang, Luis E. Pilli, Vincent M.T. de Jong, Agnes Jager, Sabine C. Linn, Valesca P. Retèl, Wim H. van Harten
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
