Scholarlink

<p>Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) can reveal how patients balance benefits and risks of cancer treatments. To align with qBRA good practice guidelines, researchers must address challenges including attribute value dependence, double counting, attribute dominance, and uncertainty associated with immature clinical trial outcomes. We present a case study illustrating these challenges in a qBRA of treatment preferences among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). First, we explain how we mitigated potential dominance of survival outcomes by narrowing the range of overall survival (OS) durations that each participant considered. Second, we describe how we acknowledged the conceptual interaction between OS and duration of remission (DOR) attributes and tested for a statistical interaction. Third, we detail how we conducted qBRA with uncertain efficacy data using bivariate sensitivity analysis. Bivariate sensitivity analysis based on DCE-elicited preferences and head-to-head clinical performance data showed that if the considered treatments – ponatinib + chemotherapy and imatinib + chemotherapy – had equivalent efficacy, 52.9% (95% CI: 52.5%–53.4%) of DCE participants would be expected to choose ponatinib over imatinib. If ponatinib offered 10-month longer DOR and 20-month longer OS vs. imatinib, 71.6% (95% CI: 67.2%–76.0%) would choose ponatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of  ≥ 70% of patients preferring ponatinib is 77.5% if ponatinib offers 15-month longer OS and DOR and 93.0% if it offers 45-month longer OS and DOR. Preference heterogeneity analyses identified that the overall choice probability results hold for all subgroups in nearly all scenarios.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Challenges in Conducting Quantitative Patient-Centered Benefit-Risk Assessments: A Case Study in Ph + ALL with Immature Efficacy Data

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月9日

查看全文
  • Ajibade Ashaye,
  • Caitlin Thomas,
  • Vamsi Kota,
  • Nicolas Krucien,
  • Kevin Marsh

摘要

Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) can reveal how patients balance benefits and risks of cancer treatments. To align with qBRA good practice guidelines, researchers must address challenges including attribute value dependence, double counting, attribute dominance, and uncertainty associated with immature clinical trial outcomes. We present a case study illustrating these challenges in a qBRA of treatment preferences among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). First, we explain how we mitigated potential dominance of survival outcomes by narrowing the range of overall survival (OS) durations that each participant considered. Second, we describe how we acknowledged the conceptual interaction between OS and duration of remission (DOR) attributes and tested for a statistical interaction. Third, we detail how we conducted qBRA with uncertain efficacy data using bivariate sensitivity analysis. Bivariate sensitivity analysis based on DCE-elicited preferences and head-to-head clinical performance data showed that if the considered treatments – ponatinib + chemotherapy and imatinib + chemotherapy – had equivalent efficacy, 52.9% (95% CI: 52.5%–53.4%) of DCE participants would be expected to choose ponatinib over imatinib. If ponatinib offered 10-month longer DOR and 20-month longer OS vs. imatinib, 71.6% (95% CI: 67.2%–76.0%) would choose ponatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of  ≥ 70% of patients preferring ponatinib is 77.5% if ponatinib offers 15-month longer OS and DOR and 93.0% if it offers 45-month longer OS and DOR. Preference heterogeneity analyses identified that the overall choice probability results hold for all subgroups in nearly all scenarios.