Preferences of patients and physicians in the United States for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma treatments.

Background: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) often relapse or become refractory to treatment (R/R). While the R/R FL treatment landscape evolves, little is known about the priorities of patients and physicians. This discrete-choice experiment (DCE) study assessed patients' and physicians' treatment preferences, and the trade-offs they would be willing to make between efficacy, tolerability, and administration.

Methods: An online survey was conducted in US-based patients (≥18 years) with R/R FL and FL-treating physicians. The DCE was informed by a targeted literature review, clinical data, expert oncologist input, and pilot interviews. Participants completed eight experimental choice tasks where they chose between two hypothetical treatment profiles defined by six attributes: progression-free survival (PFS), administration/monitoring, risks of laboratory abnormalities requiring intervention, severe infections, diarrhea, and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Relative attribute importance (RAI) and willingness to trade-off between PFS and other attributes were estimated.

Results: Two-hundred patients (mean age 63.5 years; median three prior lines of therapy) and 151 FL-treating physicians participated. Increasing PFS was most important for both groups, although it was relatively less important to patients than physicians (RAI 35.2% vs. 45.7%). Administration/monitoring was three times more important to patients than physicians (RAI 28.8% vs. 9.5%); patients preferred oral treatment and would be willing to tolerate a significant reduction in PFS for oral administration over weekly intravenous infusions. Avoiding CRS was less important to patients than to physicians (RAI 7.7% vs. 15.8%). Both groups would accept shorter PFS for reduced risks of side effects (especially of laboratory abnormalities for patients and of CRS for physicians).

Conclusion: Although PFS was the most important attribute to patients and physicians, both would tolerate lower PFS for reduced side effects. Patients would also accept a substantial reduction in PFS for oral administration. Differences between the preferences/priorities of patients and physicians highlight the importance of shared decision-making.