Patients perspectives on adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma.
Battle, D; Jonasch, E; Hammers, HJ; Derweesh, I; George, DJ; Bex, A; Ljungberg, B; Staehler, MD
Published in: Journal of Clinical Oncology
644 Background: At this point in time, there is no approved adjuvant therapy (AT) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) . The discussion on AT is driven by the pending maturation of overall survival (OS) data for sunitinib in patients at high risk for recurrence. Data on patient´s perception of AT are missing. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of specific adjuvant outcome measures to patients with RCC. Methods: We conducted a survey-monkey survey in n=450 patients with RCC on the perspective on AT. The survey was promoted via kccure.org, facebook and smartpatients.com. Question were not related to specific results of adjuvant trials but asking only about the attitude towards AT as an intervention. Results: Median age was 55.6 years (17-82 years) and 56.4% of the patients were female. 73.6% of the patients underwent nephrectomy as primary therapy, while 22.0% had a partial nephrectomy. 76.4% of the patients had clear cell RCC. 39.1% had recurrence of RCC and 35.3% were receiving systemic therapy for metastatic RCC. 63.1% of patients would use AT if it prolonged OS, followed by 60.1% if AT prolonged disease free survival (DFS), 42.7% if AT demonstrated acceptable toxicity, and 36.7% if guaranteed insurance coverage and efficacy. Experience with systemic therapy was correlated with a wish for a prolonged OS (p<0.0001). Patients with a history of systemic therapy rely on the physician’s recommendation in contrast to patients without a history of systemic therapy (p<0.0001). The recurrence status, age, initial stage and type of surgery had no influence on the patients´ decisions. 28.0% of the patients would need more information prior to their decision, 24.2% would only take AT with a proven OS benefit, 16.9% would use AT if there was moderate toxicity, 13.6% would use AT independent of the associated toxicity level, 8.2% would only use AT without any toxicity. 3.8% of the patients would not use AT. Patients on systemic therapy had a significant higher acceptance of toxicity (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Patients are willing to use AT to achieve OS and DFS benefits, and place lower emphasis on toxicity. These data provide an important perspective on patient perceptions of AT, and emphasize the need for patient education on harms and benefits of AT.
Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats
