{"title":"Patients' Preferences for Adjuvant Osimertinib in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Complete Surgical Resection: What Makes It Worth It to Patients?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cllc.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>The ADAURA trial confirmed adjuvant Osimertinib's efficacy in EGFR-mutated Non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet the limited mature </span>overall survival<span><span> (OS) data at approval poses a challenge. This study explores patient preferences in the </span>absence of complete OS information, hypothesizing that disease-free survival (DFS) benefit alone may influence adjuvant Osimertinib pursuit.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>At Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Jan-Dec 2021), patients assessed for adjuvant therapy received a survey probing OS and DFS preferences. Scenarios were (a) minimum OS justifying Osimertinib, (b) minimum DFS improvement justifying 3-years of adjuvant Osimertinib, (c) minimum 5-year DFS percent change, and (d) minimum OS justifying copay changes. Results were analyzed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 524 NSCLC patients, 51 participated. Scenario 1 saw 56% requiring a 12-month OS benefit for Osimertinib justification. In scenario 2, 72% deemed a 12-month DFS benefit sufficient. Scenario 3 revealed 31% opting out despite a 10% OS increase. Scenario 4 showed varied willingness to pay, with 33% unwilling to any shoulder copayment even with a 10-year OS benefit.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study explores patient preferences without complete OS data, revealing diverse thresholds. Factors include employment, education, and willingness to pay. Findings underscore shared decision-making importance. Limitations include sample size, potential biases, and regional focus; larger cohorts are needed for validation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10490,"journal":{"name":"Clinical lung cancer","volume":"25 6","pages":"Pages 509-518"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical lung cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525730424000822","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The ADAURA trial confirmed adjuvant Osimertinib's efficacy in EGFR-mutated Non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet the limited mature overall survival (OS) data at approval poses a challenge. This study explores patient preferences in the absence of complete OS information, hypothesizing that disease-free survival (DFS) benefit alone may influence adjuvant Osimertinib pursuit.
Methods
At Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Jan-Dec 2021), patients assessed for adjuvant therapy received a survey probing OS and DFS preferences. Scenarios were (a) minimum OS justifying Osimertinib, (b) minimum DFS improvement justifying 3-years of adjuvant Osimertinib, (c) minimum 5-year DFS percent change, and (d) minimum OS justifying copay changes. Results were analyzed.
Results
Of 524 NSCLC patients, 51 participated. Scenario 1 saw 56% requiring a 12-month OS benefit for Osimertinib justification. In scenario 2, 72% deemed a 12-month DFS benefit sufficient. Scenario 3 revealed 31% opting out despite a 10% OS increase. Scenario 4 showed varied willingness to pay, with 33% unwilling to any shoulder copayment even with a 10-year OS benefit.
Conclusion
This study explores patient preferences without complete OS data, revealing diverse thresholds. Factors include employment, education, and willingness to pay. Findings underscore shared decision-making importance. Limitations include sample size, potential biases, and regional focus; larger cohorts are needed for validation.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Lung Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of lung cancer. Clinical Lung Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of lung cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to lung cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.