First-line treatment preferences for advanced melanoma among oncologists and patients in the US: A discrete choice experiment
9539 Background: NCCN guidelines recommend nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as category 1 preferred first-line (1L) treatments (txs) for advanced melanoma. These immunotherapies (IOs) however differ in administration, efficacy, and safety. Given these differe...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 42; no. 16_suppl; p. 9539 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
01-06-2024
|
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | 9539 Background: NCCN guidelines recommend nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab + relatlimab, and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as category 1 preferred first-line (1L) treatments (txs) for advanced melanoma. These immunotherapies (IOs) however differ in administration, efficacy, and safety. Given these differences, this study examines oncologists (oncs) and patients (pts) preferences when choosing 1L tx. Methods: Pts with self-reported unresectable or metastatic melanoma and oncs completed an online cross-sectional survey. A discrete choice experiment assessed preferences for three efficacy attributes, three safety attributes, and dosing schedule. Attributes (shown in table) were identified via literature and qualitative research. Each attribute had two or three levels based on clinical trial data of recommended IOs. Participants completed 12 tasks; each task showed two tx options with varying levels for each attribute. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate preference weights for each level and relative importance estimates, based on the range between levels, were computed. Results: 75 oncs (male 76%; mean age 46 years; community-based 51%) and 62 pts (male 68%; mean age 43 years) were analyzed (pt recruitment ongoing; target n = 75). For both oncs and pts, improvements in safety attributes was more important than improvements in efficacy attributes (pts: 50.3 vs. 33.9; oncs: 48.6 vs. 40.9). For safety, a decrease in risk of discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was most important in oncs (24.7); while for pts, lower risk of grade 3/4 TRAEs was most important (22.6). For efficacy, an increase in overall survival (OS) was most influential for oncs (21.0); pts had similar estimates within efficacy. Dosing schedule was third most important for pts (15.8), while it was among the least important for oncs. Conclusions: Oncs and pts prioritize minimizing the risk of serious AEs when efficacy differences are minimal in 1L advanced melanoma tx choice. These findings highlight that oncs and pts value an IO with an efficacy benefit while ensuring a favorable risk-benefit profile. This information can inform tx counseling and selection discussions among oncs and pts. [Table: see text] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0732-183X 1527-7755 |
| DOI: | 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.9539 |