Patient and physician preferences for first‐line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. (21st September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bröckelmann, Paul J.; McMullen, Suzanne; Wilson, J Ben; Mueller, Kerstin; Goring, Sarah; Stamatoullas, Aspasia; Zagadailov, Erin; Gautam, Ashish; Huebner, Dirk; Dalal, Mehul; Illidge, Tim
• Is Part Of: British journal of haematology. Volume 184:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 202
• Page End: 214
• Publication Date: 2018-09-21
• Subjects: Hodgkin lymphoma -- patient and physician preferences -- discrete choice experiment -- ABVD -- BEACOPP; Hematology -- Periodicals; Blood -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.15
• DOI: 10.1111/bjh.15566
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1048

Abstract

Summary: First‐line treatments for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) include ABVD (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) and BEACOPPescalated (escalated dose bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone). To further improve overall outcomes, positron emission tomography‐driven strategies and ABVD or BEACOPP variants incorporating the antibody‐drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) or anti‐PD1 antibodies are under investigation in advanced‐stage patients. The present study aimed to elicit preferences for attributes associated with ABVD, BEACOPPescalated and BV‐AVD (BV, adriamycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine) among patients and physicians. Cross‐sectional online discrete choice experiments were administered to HL patients ( n = 381) and haematologists/oncologists ( n = 357) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Included attributes were progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the risk of neuropathy, lung damage, infertility and hospitalisation due to adverse events. Whereas 5‐year PFS and OS were the most important treatment attributes to patients, the relative importance of each attribute and preference weights for each level varied among physicians according to the description of the hypothetical patient for whom treatment was recommended. PFS and OS most strongly influenced physicians' recommendations when considering young female patients who did not want children or young male patients. Infertility was more important to physicians' treatment decision than PFS when considering young women with unknown fertility preferences, whereas hospitalisations due to adverse events played the largest role in treatment decisions for older patients.