OP21 Patient Values Project (PVP): Patient Preferences For Cancer Treatments To Inform A Framework Incorporating Patient Values Into Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

Introduction

The methodology for explicitly incorporating patient preferences by expert committees engaged in deliberative health technology assessment (HTA) processes for drug reimbursement recommendations is a relatively unexplored area despite the growing emphasis on patient-reported outcomes and patient engagement. The Patient Values Project (PVP) aims to improve patient input to expert review committees and promote a better understanding of the patient perspective using quantitative data to support the rationale in assessing new cancer drugs. Using colorectal cancer as a starting point, the PVP aims to develop a framework to objectively incorporate quantitative patient values and preferences into Canada’s cancer drug HTA decision-making process. We report on results from the first phase.

Methods

In the first phase, we developed a bilingual survey informed by qualitative focus groups, literature review and feedback from clinicians, patients and experts. The survey includes background questions, general and cancer specific quality-of-life tools, two discrete choice experiments (DCE) and a best worst scaling (BWS) experiment. After pre-testing and pilot testing, the survey was administered across Canada to metastatic and non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients and caregivers, in addition to adults from the general population. In the next phases, we will use vignettes to explore how patient preferences could be incorporated explicitly into decision-making, and what approach to use in HTA submissions.

Results

DCE1 survey results (˜n=1,000) reflect trade-offs between health-related quality-of-life and survival; DCE2 results reflect trade-offs between treatment regimens, side effects and survival/risk of recurrence; BWS results ranked and weighted the tolerability of 25 possible side effects of treatment. We observed differences in preferences amongst the general population, patients with metastatic cancer, non-metastatic cancer and caregivers.

Conclusions

Patients have unique perspectives and preferences about what is important and of value to them, which may impact patient adherence to treatment. In the next phases, we will explore how this evidence from patient preferences can be translated into values that could potentially be incorporated as an explicit element of the deliberative process for HTA decision-making.