Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
JCO Oncol Pract. 2022 Jan;18(1):e193-e203. doi: 10.1200/OP.21.00312. Epub 2021 Sep 15.
Patients weigh competing priorities when deciding whether to travel to a cellular therapy center for treatment. We conducted a choice-based conjoint analysis to determine the relative value they place on clinical factors, oncologist continuity, and travel time under different post-treatment follow-up arrangements. We also evaluated for differences in preferences by sociodemographic factors.
We administered a survey in which patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma selected treatment plans between pairs of hypothetical options that varied in travel time, follow-up arrangement, oncologist continuity, 2-year overall survival, and intensive care unit admission rate. We determined importance weights (which represent attributes' value to participants) using generalized estimating equations.
Three hundred and two patients (62%) responded. When all follow-up care was at the center providing treatment, plans requiring longer travel times were less attractive ( 30 minutes, importance weights [95% CI] of -0.54 [-0.80 to -0.27], -0.57 [-0.84 to -0.29], and -0.17 [-0.49 to 0.14] for 60, 90, and 120 minutes). However, the negative impact of travel on treatment plan choice was mitigated by offering shared follow-up (importance weights [95% CI] of 0.63 [0.33 to 0.93], 0.32 [0.08 to 0.57], and 0.26 [0.04 to 0.47] at 60, 90, and 120 minutes). Black participants were less likely to choose plans requiring longer travel, regardless of follow-up arrangement, as indicated by lower value importance weights for longer travel times.
Reducing travel burden through shared follow-up may increase patients' willingness to travel to receive cellular therapies, but additional measures are required to facilitate equitable access.
患者在决定是否前往细胞治疗中心接受治疗时,会权衡各种优先事项。我们进行了一项基于选择的联合分析,以确定他们在不同的治疗后随访安排下对临床因素、肿瘤医生连续性和旅行时间的相对重视程度。我们还评估了社会人口因素差异对偏好的影响。
我们进行了一项调查,要求弥漫性大 B 细胞淋巴瘤患者在治疗方案之间进行选择,这些方案在旅行时间、随访安排、肿瘤医生连续性、2 年总生存率和重症监护病房入院率方面存在差异。我们使用广义估计方程确定重要性权重(代表参与者对属性的重视程度)。
302 名患者(62%)做出了回应。当所有随访护理都在提供治疗的中心进行时,需要更长旅行时间的治疗方案吸引力较低(60 分钟、90 分钟和 120 分钟的重要性权重[95%CI]分别为-0.54[-0.80 至-0.27]、-0.57[-0.84 至-0.29]和-0.17[-0.49 至 0.14])。然而,通过提供共享随访,旅行对治疗方案选择的负面影响得到缓解(60 分钟、90 分钟和 120 分钟的重要性权重[95%CI]分别为 0.63[0.33 至 0.93]、0.32[0.08 至 0.57]和 0.26[0.04 至 0.47])。无论随访安排如何,黑人参与者选择需要更长旅行时间的治疗方案的可能性较低,这表明他们对更长旅行时间的重要性权重较低。
通过共享随访来减轻旅行负担可能会增加患者前往接受细胞治疗的意愿,但需要采取其他措施来促进公平获得。