Experience of mismatch repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) testing among patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer in the US.

Objective: We assessed knowledge and awareness of MMR/MSI testing among advanced/metastatic CRC patients in the US who had previously taken the test.Methods: A non-interventional, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 150 US CRC patients invited through a research panel. Eligible patients had to be ≥18 years, with stage III or IV CRC (self-reported), had undergone MMR/MSI testing for CRC in past 12 months and could recall the test, and provided informed consent. Descriptive analyses were performed.Results: 81.3% of patients received MMR/MSI testing information from their doctor. Of 64.7% of patients who were a member of a patient support group, 86.6% received information from their groups. Most patients (82.7%) also searched for information on their own (internet searches). Most patients (93.5 to 96.9%) were satisfied with information received from these sources. Reasons for having testing done included increasing knowledge about their cancer (69.3%), being beneficial to determining treatment options (60.7%), and doctor recommendation (62.7%). Key barriers to testing included personal reservations regarding benefits of the test (29.3%), insurance coverage (27.3%), and out-of-pocket costs (18.7%); 45.3% reported no barriers.Conclusions: Patients were well informed about MMR/MSI testing. Increased education of testing benefits and addressing financial barriers may help to further improve testing rates.

Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability Testing Practices among US Physicians Treating Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

The study objective was to assess US physicians' Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability (MMR/MSI) testing practices for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. A non-interventional, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 151 physicians (91 oncologists, 15 surgeons and 45 pathologists) treating mCRC patients in the US. Eligible physicians were US-based with at least 5 years of experience treating CRC patients, had at least one mCRC patient in their routine care in the past 6 months, and had ordered at least one MMR/MSI test for CRC in the past 6 months. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. Awareness of specific MMR/MSI testing guidelines was high (n = 127, 84.1%). Of those, 93.7% (119/127) physicians had awareness of specific published guidelines with majority 67.2% (80/119) being aware of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Universal testing for all CRC patients was performed by 68.9% (104/151) physicians, while 29.8% (45/151) selectively order the test for some CRC patients. Key barriers for testing included insufficient tissue sample (48.3%, 73/151), patient declined to have the test done (35.8%, 54/151) and insurance cost concerns for patients (31.1%, 47/151), while 27.2% (41/151) reported no barriers. The survey demonstrated high awareness and compliance with MMR/MSI testing guidelines although universal testing rates seem to be suboptimal.

Patient Preferences for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatments: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Men in Three European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Various treatment options are available for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This study aimed to quantify how men with prostate cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and Spain perceive the risks and benefits of hypothetical abiraterone acetate plus prednisone treatment and docetaxel-based chemotherapy treatment options. METHODS: A targeted literature review, exploratory interviews with prostate cancer patients and oncologists, and pre-test interviews were used to develop a discrete choice experiments (DCE). The final DCE included 32 choice sets, selected using a main-effects orthogonal design, divided into two survey blocks. Paired profiles presented hypothetical treatments for prostate cancer through six attributes that could be presented at two or four levels each. Preference estimates were estimated using a conditional logit regression model. Preference results were stratified by cancer stage. RESULTS: A total of 152 participants (mean age 69 years) completed the DCE in the UK, Germany, and Spain. Treatment effectiveness was the main concern for the patients (difference in preference estimates between 8 and 32 months 1.443). Participants wanted to avoid pain that was not well controlled (preference dummy coding estimate - 1.157). Participants valued a change from an oral medication to an intravenous treatment (change in preference estimate - 0.416) more negatively than a change from a 1% to a 5% risk of infection (change in preference estimate - 0.313). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that treatment effectiveness and pain control were the most important attributes for patients with prostate cancer. These two attributes influenced more than 50% of their decision-making in this study. The risk of fatigue and mode of administration were least prioritised by patients. This study highlights the relative importance that Spanish, German, and British patients place on various aspects of treatment options for prostate cancer. Understanding patient preference and taking them into consideration shall help physicians when developing their treatment strategies for their patients. FUNDING: Janssen.

Qualitative interviews to identify burden of illness, impacts and costs associated with surgical site infections.

AIM: To gather qualitative data from patients on the burden, impacts and costs of surgical site infections (SSI) requiring second surgeries. PATIENTS & METHODS: 15 adults with SSIs from spinal (n = 4), knee replacement (n = 3) or hip replacement (n = 8) surgery participated in a focus group or individual interview. Patients completed the PROMIS Physical Functioning (PF) Short Form 10A (PROMIS-PF). RESULTS: Patients reported impacts within four primary domains: PF/activity-related; social/emotional; financial/employment; and energy/sleep. The mean PROMIS-PF score was 39.3 (standard deviation = 12.1), over one standard deviation below 50, the US norm. CONCLUSION: SSIs impart a broad and significant impact on patients and their families. These burdens will be important to capture when selecting patient-reported outcome measures for this patient population.

Assessing the Content Validity of the Investigator-Rated ADHD Rating Scale Version IV Instrument Inattention Subscale for Use in Adults With Phenylketonuria

Abstract Content validity of the 18-item Investigator-Rated Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Rating Scale IV (I-ADHD RS-IV) with adult prompts was investigated using qualitative interviews of US clinicians who had prior experience rating adults with phenylketonuria (PKU) using the I-ADHD RS-IV. Fourteen qualitative interviews were conducted to obtain key symptom experiences of adults with PKU and assessed the relevance, clarity, and administration of the I-ADHD RS-IV. Participants (n = 13, 92.9%) endorsed the inattention symptoms as key experiences by adults with PKU and endorsed the instrument as fit for purpose for adults with PKU. Participants generally reported low frequencies of occurrence for the 9 I-ADHD RS-IV hyperactivity/impulsivity items. Despite some clinicians' concerns for the lack of patient self-awareness, the participants reported no difficulty selecting a rating on these items. This in-depth study of the content validity of the I-ADHD RS-IV provides evidence that this clinician-reported instrument captures the severity of important inattention symptoms in adults with PKU.