RESUMO
Purpose: The evolving treatment landscape in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma creates challenges for clinicians and patients in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Here, we aimed to understand adjuvant treatment preferences among patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection, including tradeoffs between efficacy outcomes and toxicity risks. Patients and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study utilizing a discrete choice experiment was conducted across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany via a web-based survey. Patients ≥18 years of age who self-reported as having been diagnosed with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were included. Patients indicated their preferences between hypothetical treatment profiles varying in eight attributes relating to efficacy, regimen, and side effects. Preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression; relative attribute importance estimates were calculated. Results: Overall, 207 patients were included (age ≥56 years, 65.7%; male, 54.1%). Patients chose adjuvant treatment 91.2% of the time vs no treatment. Prolonging overall survival from 25 to 78 months was most important, followed by reducing serious side effect risks. Increasing disease-free survival from 12 to 24 months was more important than decreasing risks of fatigue from 54% to 15% and nausea from 53% to 7%. Treatment with the shortest dosing regimen was more important for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy; prolonging overall survival was more important than reducing the risk of a serious side effect in non-US patients; the opposite was found in the United States. Conclusion: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection preferred adjuvant treatment over no treatment regardless of side effects. Patients prioritized overall survival improvements followed by a reduced side effect profile.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Misperceptions about ulcerative colitis (UC) may influence management strategies and limit opportunities for improving patient outcomes. This study assessed physicians' perceptions of UC, concepts of disease severity and remission, and treatment goals. METHODS: Gastroenterologists who typically treated ≥10 adults with UC per month were recruited for a large-scale, web-based survey. Participants were asked about their perceptions of UC (often vs. Crohn's disease [CD]), treatment goals, and medication use. Response data were evaluated via descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists (N = 500) with a mean of 16.5 years (standard deviation, 8.7 years) in practice participated. In comparison to CD, survey respondents perceived UC as being easier to diagnose, having better treatment outcomes, and being associated with later prescribing of biologics. Treatment goals commonly considered to have the greatest importance included quality of life improvement (31.2% of respondents), maintenance of clinical remission (17.4%), and mucosal healing (17.4%). When respondents evaluated the performance of medication classes in achieving these goals, biologics were rated significantly higher than all other classes (P < 0.05). However, the most common drivers for the initiation of biologic therapy were the development of steroid refractoriness (66.8%) and steroid dependency (65.8%). Medication class use by UC severity was generally consistent with the traditional step-up approach to UC therapy, with biologics being used most commonly for severe UC. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a possible disparity between treatment goals and therapeutic management in UC. An increased awareness of general UC perceptions is an important step toward a better overall understanding of the disease and, ultimately, toward improved management aligned with treatment goals. FUNDING: This study was sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), and the design and conduct of the study as well as article processing charges and the open access fee for this publication were funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (TPI).