Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T21:57:51.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient Preferences Concerning Alternative Treatments for Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results of the “PIANO-Study”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2019

Axel C. Mühlbacher Open the ORCID record for Axel C. Mühlbacher [Opens in a new window]  and
Christin Juhnke
Axel C. Mühlbacher*
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Germany GEB Empirical Consulting mbH, Freiburg, Germany Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Christin Juhnke
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Axel C. Mühlbacher, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, slow-growing malignant tumors. So far, there are no data on patient preferences regarding its therapy. This empirical study aimed to elicit patient preferences in the drug treatment of NET.

Methods

Based on qualitative patient interviews and an analytic hierarchy process, six patient-relevant attributes were analyzed and weighted using a discrete-choice experiment. Patients were recruited with the help of a NET support group. An experimental 3*3 + 6*3 –MNL design was created using NGene. The design consisted of eighty-four choices, divided into seven blocks. Participants were randomly assigned to these blocks. The analysis included random parameter logit and latent class models.

Results

A total of 275 participants (51.6 percent female; mean age, 58.4 years) were included. The preference analysis within the random parameter logit model, taking into account the 95 percent confidence interval, showed predominance for the attribute “overall survival.” The attributes “response to treatment” and “stabilization of tumor growth” followed. The side effects “nausea/vomiting” and “diarrhea” were considered of relatively equal importance. Latent class analysis of possible subgroup differences revealed three preference patterns.

Conclusions

Preferences can influence therapeutic decisions. Preference analyses indicated that “overall survival” had the strongest influence, with participants clearly weighing outcome attributes higher than side effect attributes. In conclusion, mono-criterial decisions would not fully reflect patient perspectives.

Keywords

Patient preferencesDiscrete choice experimentNeuroendocrine tumors
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , 2019 , pp. 243 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank all participating patients and their families for their support. Our thanks to the support group “Netzwerk Neuroendokrine Tumoren (NeT) e.V.,” in particular Katharina Mellar, for their help in organizing the pretest interviews and recruiting the survey participants. This study was supported by a grant from Ipsen Pharma GmbH.

References

1.Klemperer, D, Rosenwirth, M (2005) Shared decision making: Konzept, Voraussetzungen und politische Implikationen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
2.Mühlbacher, AC, Juhnke, C (2013) Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: Does it Make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11, 163–180.Google Scholar
3.Mühlbacher, AC, Bethge, S (2015) Patients’ preferences: A discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Health Econ 16, 657–670.Google Scholar
4.Granberg, D (2009) Investigational drugs for neuroendocrine tumours. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 18, 601–608.Google Scholar
5.Kulke, MH, Mayer, RJ (1999) Carcinoid tumors. N Engl J Med 340, 858–868.Google Scholar
6.Kvols, LK (2002) Carcinoid tumors and the carcinoid syndrome: What's new in the therapeutic pipeline. Carcinoid Symposium 2002. http://www.carcinoid.org/content/carcinoid-tumors-and-carcinoid-syndrome-whats-new-therapeutic-pipeline.Google Scholar
7.Arnold, R (2010) Patientenbroschüre: Neuroendokrine Tumoren des Magen-Darm-Traktes und der Bauchspeicheldrüse (GEP-NET). 2010, Netzwerk Neuroendokrine Tumoren (NeT) e. V., Bundesorganisation Selbsthilfe NeuroEndokrine Tumoren e. V., AG NET der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Endokrinologie, Covidien Deutschland GmbH: München.Google Scholar
8.Öberg, K, Castellano, D (2011) Current knowledge on diagnosis and staging of neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Metastasis Rev 30(Suppl 1), 3–7.Google Scholar
9.Colao, A, Faggiano, A, Pivonello, R (2010) Somatostatin analogues: Treatment of pituitary and neuroendocrine tumors. Prog Brain Res 182, 281–294.Google Scholar
10.Benson, AB III, Myerson, RJ, Sasson, AR (2004) Pancreatic, neuroendocrine GI, and adrenal cancers. Cancer management: A multidisciplinary approach. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis Company; p. 273–302.Google Scholar
11.Melmed, S, Casanueva, F, Cavagnini, F, et al. (2002) Guidelines for acromegaly management. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87, 4054–4058.Google Scholar
12.Arnold, R, Göke, R, Wied, M, Th, Behr (2003) Chapter 15 neuroendocrine gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) tumors. In: W. Scheppach, W, Bresalier, R, Tytgat, G, eds. Gastrointestinal and liver tumors. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
13.Lancaster, KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74, 132–157.Google Scholar
14.McFadden, D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P, ed. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Acedemic Press; p. 105–142.Google Scholar
15.Ben-Akiva, ME, Lerman, SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press series in transportation studies. Cambridge, MA: [u.a.]: MIT Press.Google Scholar
16.Hensher, DA, Rose, JM, Greene, WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
17.Johnson, FR (2008) Why not ask?: Measuring patient preferences for healthcare decision making. Patient 1, 245–248.Google Scholar
18.Lancsar, E, Louviere, J (2008) Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user's guide. PharmacoEconomics 26, 661–678.Google Scholar
19.Ryan, M, Gerard, K, Amaya-Amaya, M (2008) Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. The economics of non-market goods and resources. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
20.de Bekker-Grob, EW, Ryan, M, Gerard, K (2012) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Econ 21, 145–172.Google Scholar
21.Bridges, J, Hauber, A, Marshall, D, et al. (2009) Checklist for conjoint analysis applications in health: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good Research practices Taskforce. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.510.7891.Google Scholar
22.Mühlbacher, A, Bethge, S, Tockhorn, A (2013) Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 18, 159–172.Google Scholar
23.Mühlbacher, A, Johnson, FR (2016) Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: State of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 14, 253–266.Google Scholar
24.Bridges, J, Hauber, B, Marshall, D, et al. (2011) Conjoint analysis use in health studies – A checklist: A report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis in Health Good Research Practices Task Force. ISPOR TF Report.Google Scholar
25.Pignatti, F (2014) Outcomes of recent EMA/CHMP benefit-risk project (EPAR). London: European Medicines Agency.Google Scholar
26.Mühlbacher, A, Juhnke, C, Kaczynski, A (2016) Die Patientenperspektive in der Behandlung von Neuroendokrinen Tumoren: Eine Analyse mittels Analytic Hierarchy Process. Gesundheitswesen 78, 651–657.Google Scholar
27.Mühlbacher, A, Juhnke, C, Kaczynski, A (2014) Patients' priorities in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: An analytic hierarchy process. Value Health 17, A650.Google Scholar
28.Helm, R, Steiner, M (2008) Präferenzmessung: Methodengestützte Entwicklung zielgruppenspezifischer Produktinnovationen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag.Google Scholar
29.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protection Guidance on Reviewing and Reporting Unanticipated Problems Involving Risks to Subjects or Others and Adverse Events. 2007.Google Scholar
30.ChoiceMetrics. (2019) NGene. http://www.choice-metrics.com.Google Scholar
31.Orme, BK (2010) Sample size issues for conjoint analysis. In: Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC; p. 57–66.Google Scholar
32.Yang, J-C, Johnson, FR, Kilambi, V, Mohamed, AF (2015) Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: A meta-simulation approach. J Choice Model 16, 50–57.Google Scholar
33.de Bekker-Grob, EW, Donkers, B, Jonker, MF, Stolk, EA (2015) Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. Patient 8, 373–384.Google Scholar
34.Rabe-Hesketh, S, Skrondal, A, Pickles, A (2004) GLLAMM manual. Berkeley, CA: Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, U.C. Berkeley.Google Scholar
35.Hess, S, Ben-Akiva, M, Gopinath, D, Walker, J (2009) Advantages of latent class choice models over continuous mixed logit models. In: 12th International Conference for Travel Behaviour Research, Jaipur, India. 2009.Google Scholar
36.Shen, J (2009) Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data. Appl Econ 41, 2915–2924.Google Scholar
37.Hess, S (2014) Chapter 14: Latent class structures: Taste heterogeneity and beyond. In: Hess, S, Daly, AJ. Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; p. 311–330.Google Scholar
38.Eriksson, B, Klöppel, G, Krenning, E, et al. (2008) Consensus guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine tumors-well-differentiated jejunal-ileal tumor/carcinoma. Neuroendocrinology 87, 8–19.Google Scholar
39.Ramage, JK, Goretzki, PE, Manfredi, R, et al. (2008) Consensus guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine tumours: Well-differentiated colon and rectum tumour/carcinoma. Neuroendocrinology 87, 31.Google Scholar
40.Johanson, V, Wilson, B, Abrahamsson, A, et al. (2012) Randomized crossover study in patients with neuroendocrine tumors to assess patient preference for lanreotide Autogel® Given by either self/partner or a health care professional. Patient Prefer Adherence 6, 703–710.Google Scholar
41.Kolarova, T, Sissons, M, Leyden, J (2014) Quantifying the net patient experience through the first global net patient survey: A collaboration between the International Neuroendocrine Cancer Alliance and Novartis. Ann Oncol 25(Suppl 4), iv405.Google Scholar
42.Pavel, M (2012) ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary. Neuroendocrinology 95, 1–39.Google Scholar
43.Plockinger, U, Couvelard, A, Falconi, M, et al. (2008) Consensus guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine tumours: Well-differentiated tumour/carcinoma of the appendix and goblet cell carcinoma. Neuroendocrinology 87, 20.Google Scholar
44.Öberg, K, Knigge, U, Kwekkeboom, D, Perren, A (2012) Neuroendocrine gastro-entero-pancreatic tumors: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 7), vii124–vii130.Google Scholar
45.Arnold, R, Wittenberg, M, Rinke, A, et al. (2013) Placebo controlled, double blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors (PROMID): Results on long-term survival. J Clin Oncol 31(Suppl), 4030–4030.Google Scholar
46.Rinke, A, Müller, HH, Schade-Brittinger, C, et al. (2009) Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: A report from the PROMID Study Group. J Clin Oncol 27, 4656–4663.Google Scholar
47.Caplin, ME, Pavel, M, Ćwikła, JB, et al. (2014) Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med 371, 224–233.Google Scholar
48.Pavel, ME, Hainsworth, JD, Baudin, E, et al. (2011) Everolimus plus octreotide long-acting repeatable for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumours associated with carcinoid syndrome (RADIANT-2): A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet 378, 2005–2012.Google Scholar
49.Raymond, E, Niccoli, P, Raoul, J, et al. (2011) Updated overall survival and progression-free survival by blinded independent central review of sunitinib versus placebo for patients with advanced unresectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol 30(Suppl) 4118–4118.Google Scholar
50.Brundage, MD, Davidson, JR, Mackillop, WJ (1997) Trading treatment toxicity for survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 15, 330–340.Google Scholar
51.Silvestri, G, Pritchard, R, Welch, HG (1998) Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Descriptive study based on scripted interviews. BMJ 317, 771–775.Google Scholar
52.Brundage, M, Feldman-Stewart, D, Cosby, R, et al. (2001) Cancer patients’ attitudes toward treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Implications for patient education and decision support. Patient Educ Couns 45, 149–157.Google Scholar
53.Hirose, T, Horichi, N, Ohmori, T, et al. (2005) Patients preferences in chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Intern Med 44, 107–113.Google Scholar
54.Hirose, T, Yamaoka, T, Ohnishi, T, et al. (2009) Patient willingness to undergo chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Psychooncology 18, 483–489.Google Scholar
55.Blinman, P, Alam, M, Duric, V, et al. (2010) Patients' preferences for chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review. Lung Cancer 69, 141–147.Google Scholar
56.Burke, PF, Burton, C, Huybers, T, et al. (2010) The Scale-adusted Latent Class Model: Application to museum visitation. Tourism Analysis 15, 147–165.Google Scholar
57.Alvaro, M, Kumar, D, Julka, IS (1999) Transcutaneous electrostimulation: Emerging treatment for diabetic neuropathic pain. Diabetes Technol Ther 1, 77–80.Google Scholar
58.Edwards, A, Elwyn, G (2006) Inside the black box of shared decision making: Distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect 9, 307–320.Google Scholar
59.Edwards, A, Elwyn, G, Wood, F, et al. (2005) Shared decision making and risk communication in practice: A qualitative study of GPs' experiences. Br J Gen Pract 55, 6.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mühlbacher and Juhnke supplementary material

Mühlbacher and Juhnke supplementary material 1

Download Mühlbacher and Juhnke supplementary material(File)
File 39.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mühlbacher and Juhnke supplementary material

Mühlbacher and Juhnke supplementary material 2

Download Mühlbacher and Juhnke supplementary material(File)
File 145.1 KB