Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results. CONCLUSIONS: Give