IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v18y2025i1d10.1007_s40271-024-00709-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: An Application of Multidimensional Thresholding

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea B. Apolo

    (National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health)

  • Christine Michaels-Igbokwe

    (Evidera)

  • Nicholas I. Simon

    (National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health)

  • David J. Benjamin

    (Hoag Family Cancer Institute)

  • Mallory Farrar

    (Pfizer Inc)

  • Zsolt Hepp

    (Pfizer Inc)

  • Lisa Mucha

    (Astellas Pharma, Inc)

  • Sebastian Heidenreich

    (Evidera)

  • Katelyn Cutts

    (Evidera)

  • Nicolas Krucien

    (Evidera)

  • Natasha Ramachandran

    (Evidera)

  • John L. Gore

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

Objectives Patient preferences have the potential to influence the development of new treatments for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC), and therefore we explored how patients with la/mUC value different attributes of first-line treatments. Methods An online preference survey and multidimensional thresholding (MDT) exercise were developed following a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews with physicians, patients with la/mUC, and their caregivers. Treatment attributes included two benefits (overall response rate [ORR], pain related to bladder cancer [scored 0−100; 100 being the worst pain possible]) and four treatment-related risks (peripheral neuropathy, severe side effects, mild to moderate nausea, mild to moderate skin reactions). A Dirichlet regression was used to estimate average preference weights. Marginal utility and the reduction in ORR that patients would accept in exchange for a 10-point decrease or a 10% decrease in other attributes were calculated. Results A total of 100 patients were recruited and self-completed the survey and MDT. Mean patient age was 64.9 years (standard deviation, 7.6), 54% were female, and 38% identified as white. All included treatment attributes had a statistically significant impact on preferences. Changes in ORR had the largest impact, followed by cancer-related pain and treatment-related risks. Patients were willing to accept an 8.4% decrease in ORR to reduce their pain level by 10 points or a 7.8% decrease in ORR to reduce the risk of peripheral neuropathy by 10%. For a 10% decrease in severe side effects, mild to moderate nausea, or skin reaction, patients would accept decreases in ORR of 5.5%, 3.7%, or 3.4%, respectively. Conclusions Of the attributes tested, changes in ORR were most important to patients. Patients made tradeoffs between treatment attributes indicating that a lower ORR may be acceptable for an improvement in other attributes such as reduced cancer-related pain or the risk of treatment-related adverse events.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea B. Apolo & Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Nicholas I. Simon & David J. Benjamin & Mallory Farrar & Zsolt Hepp & Lisa Mucha & Sebastian Heidenreich & Katelyn Cutts & Nicolas Krucien & Natasha Rama, 2025. "Patient Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: An Application of Multidimensional Thresholding," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(1), pages 77-87, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00709-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00709-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00709-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-024-00709-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    2. Tommi Tervonen & Francesco Pignatti & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "From Individual to Population Preferences: Comparison of Discrete Choice and Dirichlet Models for Treatment Benefit-Risk Tradeoffs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 879-885, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    2. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    3. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    4. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "The value of mortality risk reductions. Pure altruism - a confounder?," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    5. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    6. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    7. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    9. Martey, E., 2018. "Heterogeneous Demand for Quality Soybean in Northern Ghana," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277013, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    11. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    12. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    13. Sotirios Thanos & Mark Wardman & Abigail Bristow, 2011. "Valuing Aircraft Noise: Stated Choice Experiments Reflecting Inter-Temporal Noise Changes from Airport Relocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 559-583, December.
    14. Lippi Bruni, Matteo & Ugolini, Cristina & Verzulli, Rossella, 2021. "Should I wait or should I go? Travelling versus waiting for better healthcare," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    15. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Xu, Huidong, 2018. "Fresh foods irrigated with recycled water: A framed field experiment on consumer responses," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 103-112.
    17. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    18. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(3).
    19. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    20. Godager, Geir, 2012. "Birds of a feather flock together: A study of doctor–patient matching," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 296-305.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00709-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.