Search

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., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Background. There has been much innovation in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in recent years. In particular, use of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has been growing. Methods. Patients with NSCLC in the United States were surveyed online using a discrete choice experiment to elicit first-line (1L) treatment preferences across six treatment attributes: survival, adverse events (AEs), mechanism of action (MOA), subsequent treatment options (STOs), genetic testing treatment delay, and out-of-pocket cost (OOPC). Preferences were estimated using a latent-class model. Preference shares were estimated for IO-IO, IO-chemo, and chemo-like regimens. Results. Of the 199 patients who completed the survey, 55% were male, 76% were white, 19% had not begun or were on 1L treatment, and the median age was 43 years. Based on a latent-class model with 3 preference classes, 53.0% of patients considered survival and OOPC alone and were less likely to choose an option with a higher OOPC and lower survival, 12.7% of patients were likely to choose the more expensive option, and for 34.3% of patients, survival, AE risk, and treatment delays all significantly influenced choices. MOA and STOs did not significantly influence treatment choices in any preference class. Approximately 53%, 27%, and 20% of patients preferred IO-IO-like, IO-chemo-like, and chemo-like regimens in 1L, respectively. Respondents were younger, more likely to be Caucasian, and more likely to speak English than the general NSCLC patient population. Conclusions. OOPC, effectiveness, treatment delays, and safety influenced NSCLC patients' 1L treatment decisions, and most patients preferred an IO-IO followed by IO-chemo-like regimen in 1L. Cancer treatment decisions are complex and patient preferences are unique; therefore, patients' treatment objectives should be discussed in shared treatment decision making., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Joanna MacEwan and Lauren Zhao are employees of PRECISIONheor, a research consultancy to the health and life science industries. Karen Reckamp is a Scientific Advisor to PRECISIONheor., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

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.