Estimating Productivity Loss from Breast and Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer among Working-Age Patients and Unpaid Caregivers: A Survey Study Using the Multiplier Method.

Background. Traditional approaches to capturing health-related productivity loss (e.g., the human capital method) focus only on the foregone wages of affected patients, overlooking the losses caregivers can incur. This study estimated the burden of productivity loss among breast cancer (BC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and individuals caring for such patients using an augmented multiplier method. Design. A cross-sectional survey of BC and NSCLC patients and caregivers measured loss associated with time absent from work (absenteeism) and reduced effectiveness (presenteeism). Respondents reported pre- and postcancer diagnosis income, hours worked, and time to complete tasks. Exploratory multivariable analyses examined correlations between respondents' clinical/demographic characteristics-including industry of employment-and postdiagnosis productivity. Results. Of 204 patients (104 BC, 100 NSCLC) and 200 caregivers (100 BC, 100 NSCLC) who completed the survey, 319 participants (162 BC, 157 NSCLC) working ≥40 wk/y prediagnosis were included in the analysis. More than one-third of the NSCLC (33%) and BC (43%) patients left the workforce postdiagnosis, whereas only 15% of caregivers did. The traditional estimate for the burden of productivity loss was 66% lower on average than the augmented estimate (NSCLC patients: 60%, BC patients: 69%, NSCLC caregivers: 59%, and BC caregivers: 73%). Conclusions. Although patients typically experience greater absenteeism, productivity loss incurred by caregivers is also substantial. Failure to account for such impacts can result in substantial underestimation of productivity gains novel cancer treatments may confer by enabling patients and caregivers to remain in the workforce longer. Our results underscore the importance of holistic approaches to understanding this impact on both patients and their caregivers and accounting for such considerations when making decisions about treatment and treatment value. Highlights: Cancer can have a profound impact on productivity. This study demonstrates how the disease affects not only patients but also the informal or unpaid individuals who care for patients.An augmented approach to calculating health-related productivity loss suggests that productivity impacts are much larger than previously understood.A more comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of cancer for both patients and their caregivers suggests the need for more support in the workplace for these individuals and a holistic approach to accounting for these impacts in treatment decision making.

Progression-free survival and quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: The patient perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment advances for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) have improved overall survival (OS) in some mBC subtypes; however, there remains no cure for mBC. Considering the use of progression-free survival (PFS) and other surrogate endpoints in clinical trials, we must understand patient perspectives on measures used to assess treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To explore global patient perceptions of the concept of PFS and its potential relation to quality of life (QoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual roundtables in Europe and the United States and interviews in Japan with breast cancer patients, patient advocates, and thought leaders. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Lengthened OS combined with no worsening or improvement in QoL remain the most important endpoints for mBC patients. Time when the disease is not progressing is meaningful to patients when coupled with improvements in QoL and no added treatment toxicity. Clinical terminology such as "PFS" is not well understood, and participants underscored the need for patient-friendly terminology to better illustrate the concept. Facets of care that patients with mBC value and that may be related to PFS include relief from cancer-related symptoms and treatment-related toxicities as well as the ability to pursue personal goals. Improved communication between patients and providers on managing treatment-related toxicities and addressing psychosocial challenges to maintain desired QoL is needed. CONCLUSION: While OS and QoL are considered the most relevant endpoints, patients also value periods of time without disease progression. Incorporation of these considerations into the design and conduct of future clinical trials in mBC, as well as HTA and reimbursement decision-making, is needed to better capture the potential value of a therapeutic innovation.

Management of Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in an Evolving Treatment Landscape: A Qualitative Study of Provider Perspectives of First-Line Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment landscape in locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has evolved with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the first line (1L) and platinum-refractory settings and with the recent approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients achieving disease control with platinum-containing regimens. Oncology provider perspectives and decision-making processes regarding aUC management, especially with the integration of recently approved strategies, such as maintenance therapy, have not been well-described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Qualitative interview study with US oncologists and oncology nurses in academic and community settings in August 2020. Interviews explored decision-making around aUC 1L treatment eligibility determinants and selection, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing practices, and use of maintenance therapy. Thematic analysis was used to identify drivers of 1L treatment decisions. RESULTS: Eighteen oncologists (women, 11%; >15 years in practice, 55%; academic, 39%) and 18 oncology nurses (women, 94%; >15 years in practice, 34%; academic, 50%) participated. Providers preferred platinum-based regimens in 1L setting and reserved 1L ICI monotherapy for frail patients. Providers preferred chemotherapy followed by switch maintenance ICI, as opposed to concurrent combination chemotherapy and ICI, followed by ICI as continuation maintenance. Decision-making was driven by need to adhere to treatment decision-making guidelines, characteristics of the patient, treatment efficacy and patient preference. CONCLUSION: Providers adhered to guidelines and level I evidence in decision-making in the aUC 1L setting. Future studies should further evaluate barriers to the adoption of standard-of-care strategies and factors impacting decision-making in the real-world setting.

Measuring the Value Healthy Individuals Place on Generous Insurance Coverage of Severe Diseases: A Stated Preference Survey of Adults Diagnosed With and Without Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ex ante willingness to pay (WTP) of healthy individuals for generous insurance coverage of novel lung cancer treatments to the WTP for coverage of such treatment among individuals with lung cancer. METHODS: A survey was administered to 2 cohorts of US adults: (1) healthy individuals without cancer and (2) individuals diagnosed with lung cancer. A multiple random staircase survey design was used to elicit respondent WTP for coverage of novel lung cancer therapy associated with survival gains. RESULTS: Of the 84 937 healthy individuals invited, 300 completed the survey. Of the 36 249 in the lung cancer cohort invited, 250 completed the survey. Mean age by cohort was 50.0 (SD 14.6) and 48.4 (SD 16.8) years, and 55.2% and 47.2% were female, respectively. Respondents in the healthy and lung cancer cohorts were willing to pay $97.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) $89.89-$105.15) and $22 304 (95% CI $20 194-$24 414) per month, respectively, for coverage of a novel therapy providing 5-year survival of 15% versus standard-of-care therapy with a 5-year survival of 4%. After accounting for the likelihood that healthy individuals are diagnosed with lung cancer in the future, we estimated that 89.8% of the total value of new lung cancer treatments comes from the WTP healthy individuals place on generous insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Total societal willingness to pay for lung cancer is much higher than conventionally thought, as most healthy individuals are risk-averse and highly value having lung cancer treatments available to them in the future.

The Value of Progression-Free Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results From a Survey of Patients and Providers.

Background. Value assessments and treatment decision making typically focus on clinical endpoints, especially overall survival (OS). However, OS data are not always available, and surrogate markers may also have some value to patients. This study sought to estimate preferences for progression-free survival (PFS) relative to OS in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) among a diverse set of stakeholders-patients, oncologists, and oncology nurses-and estimate the value patients and providers place on other attributes of treatment. Methods. Utilizing a combined conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiment approach, we conducted an online prospective survey of mBC patients and oncology care providers who treat mBC patients across the United States. Results. A total of 299 mBC patients, 100 oncologists, and 99 oncology nurses completed the survey. Virtually all patients preferred health state sequences with contiguous periods of PFS, compared with approximately 85% and 75% of nurses and oncologists, respectively. On average, longer OS was significantly (P < 0.01) preferred by the majority (75%) patients, but only 15% of nurses preferred longer OS, and OS did not significantly affect oncologists' preferred health state. However, in the context of a treatment decision, whether a treatment offered continuous periods of stable disease holding OS constant significantly affected nurses' treatment choices. Patients and providers alike valued reductions in adverse event risk and evidence from high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials. Conclusions. The strong preference for observed PFS suggests more research is warranted to better understand the reasons for PFS having positive value to patients. The results also suggest a range of endpoints in clinical trials may have importance to patients.

Mapping the Decision-Making Process for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer: The Role of Decisional Resolve.

BACKGROUND: Studies show adjuvant endocrine therapy increases survival and decreases risk of breast cancer recurrence for hormone receptor-positive tumors. Yet studies also suggest that adherence rates among women taking this therapy may be as low as 50% owing largely to adverse side effects. Despite these rates, research on longitudinal patient decision making regarding this therapy is scant. OBJECTIVE: We sought to map the decision-making process for women considering and initiating adjuvant endocrine therapy, paying particular attention to patterns of uncertainty and decisional change over time. METHODS: A longitudinal series of semistructured interviews conducted at a multispecialty health care organization in Northern California with 35 newly diagnosed patients eligible for adjuvant endocrine therapy were analyzed. Analysis led to the identification and indexing of 3 new decision-making constructs-decisional phase, decisional direction, and decisional resolve-which were then organized using a visual matrix and examined for patterns characterizing the decision-making process. RESULTS: Our data reveal that most patients do not make a single, discrete decision to take or not take hormone therapy but rather traverse multiple decisional states, characterized by 1) phase, 2) direction, and 3) strength of resolve. Our analysis tracks these decisional states longitudinally using a grayscale-coded matrix. Our data show that decisional resolve wavers not just when considering therapy, as the existing concept of decisional conflict suggests, but even after initiating it, which may signal future decisions to forgo therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant endocrine therapy, like other chronic care decisions, has a longer decision-making process and implementation period. Thus, theoretical, empirical, and clinical approaches should consider further exploring the new concept and measurement of decisional resolve, as it may help to improve subsequent medication adherence.

Redefining Risk and Benefit: Understanding the Decision to Undergo Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among unilateral breast cancer patients are rapidly increasing; however, there are little data documenting the decision-making process of patients with no known BRCA mutations, who elect this more aggressive treatment. We conducted semistructured interviews with nine newly diagnosed patients who elected CPM over other surgical options. Using grounded theory, we analyzed interview data to identify influential decision-making factors by prevalence and intensity across participants. Decision-making factors included subjective evaluations of risk and benefit, avoidance of future breast cancer surveillance and accompanying worry, and desire to maintain (or improve) breast appearance. Based solely on survival benefit, the decision to undergo CPM might be viewed as unnecessary or even misguided. However, our findings show the importance of psychosocial factors in patients' assessments of risk and benefit, and support the need for additional patient-provider communication regarding these factors.

Beyond barriers: fundamental 'disconnects' underlying the treatment of breast cancer patients' sexual health.

Sexual health concerns represent one of the most frequently experienced and longest-lasting effects of breast cancer treatment, but research suggests that service providers rarely discuss sexual health with their patients. Existing research examining barriers to addressing patients' sexual health concerns has focused on discrete characteristics of the provider-patient interaction without considering the broader context in which these interactions occur. Drawing on the experiences of 21 breast cancer survivors, this paper explores three ways in which fundamental cultural and structural characteristics of the cancer care system in the USA may prevent breast cancer survivors from addressing their sexual health concerns, including: (1) when patients discussed sexual health with their providers, their providers approached sexuality as primarily physical, while participants experienced complex, multidimensional sexual health concerns; (2) specialisation within cancer care services made it difficult for patients to identify the appropriate provider to address their concerns; and (3) the structure of cancer care literally disconnects patients from the healthcare system at the time when sexual side effects commonly emerged. These data suggest that addressing breast cancer survivors' sexual health concerns requires a multifaceted approach to health systems change.

Breast cancer treatment across health care systems: linking electronic medical records and state registry data to enable outcomes research.

BACKGROUND: Understanding of cancer outcomes is limited by data fragmentation. In the current study, the authors analyzed the information yielded by integrating breast cancer data from 3 sources: electronic medical records (EMRs) from 2 health care systems and the state registry. METHODS: Diagnostic test and treatment data were extracted from the EMRs of all patients with breast cancer treated between 2000 and 2010 in 2 independent California institutions: a community-based practice (Palo Alto Medical Foundation; "Community") and an academic medical center (Stanford University; "University"). The authors incorporated records from the population-based California Cancer Registry and then linked EMR-California Cancer Registry data sets of Community and University patients. RESULTS: The authors initially identified 8210 University patients and 5770 Community patients; linked data sets revealed a 16% patient overlap, yielding 12,109 unique patients. The percentage of all Community patients, but not University patients, treated at both institutions increased with worsening cancer prognostic factors. Before linking the data sets, Community patients appeared to receive less intervention than University patients (mastectomy: 37.6% vs 43.2%; chemotherapy: 35% vs 41.7%; magnetic resonance imaging: 10% vs 29.3%; and genetic testing: 2.5% vs 9.2%). Linked Community and University data sets revealed that patients treated at both institutions received substantially more interventions (mastectomy: 55.8%; chemotherapy: 47.2%; magnetic resonance imaging: 38.9%; and genetic testing: 10.9% [P < .001 for each 3-way institutional comparison]). CONCLUSIONS: Data linkage identified 16% of patients who were treated in 2 health care systems and who, despite comparable prognostic factors, received far more intensive treatment than others. By integrating complementary data from EMRs and population-based registries, a more comprehensive understanding of breast cancer care and factors that drive treatment use was obtained.

An effort to spread decision aids in five California primary care practices yielded low distribution, highlighting hurdles.

Despite the proven efficacy of decision aids as interventions for increasing patient engagement and facilitating shared decision making, they are not used routinely in clinical care. Findings from a project designed to achieve such integration, conducted at five primary care practices in 2010-12, document low rates of distribution of decision aids to eligible patients due for colorectal cancer screening (9.3 percent) and experiencing back pain (10.7 percent). There were also no lasting increases in distribution rates in response to training sessions and other promotional activities for physicians and clinic staff. The results of focus groups, ethnographic field notes, and surveys suggest that major structural and cultural changes in health care practice and policy are necessary to achieve the levels of use of decision aids and shared decision making in routine practice envisioned in current policy. Among these changes are ongoing incentives for use, physician training, and a team-based practice model in which all care team members bear formal responsibility for the use of decision aids in routine primary care.