RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Patient preferences for lung cancer interception therapy
Janssen, E. M., Smith, I. P., Liu, X., Huang, Q., Kalsekar, I., Vachani, A., Mansfield, C., & Pierce, A. M. (2023). Patient preferences for lung cancer interception therapy. JAMA network open, 6(11), e2342681. Article e2342681. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.42681
IMPORTANCE: Interception therapy requires individuals to undergo treatment to prevent a future medical event, but little is known about preferences of individuals at high risk for lung cancer and whether they would be interested in this type of treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To explore preferences of individuals at high risk for lung cancer for potential interception therapies to reduce this risk.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This survey study used a discrete-choice experiment and included hypothetical lung cancer interception treatments with 4 attributes: reduction in lung cancer risk over 3 years, injection site reaction severity, nonfatal serious infection, and death from serious infection. Respondents were assigned to a baseline lung cancer risk of 6%, 10%, or 16% over 3 years. The discrete-choice experiment was administered online (July 13 to September 6, 2022) to US respondents eligible for lung cancer screening according to US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Participants included adults aged 50 to 80 years with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history. Statistical analysis was performed from September to December 2022.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Attribute-level preference weights were estimated, and conditional relative attribute importance, maximum acceptable risks, and minimum acceptable benefits were calculated. Characteristics of respondents who always selected no treatment were also explored.
RESULTS: Of the 803 survey respondents, 495 (61.6%) were female, 138 (17.2%) were African American or Black, 55 (6.8%) were Alaska Native, American Indian, or Native American, 44 (5.5%) were Asian or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 104 (13.0%) were Hispanic, Latin American, or Latinx, and 462 (57.5%) were White, Middle Eastern or North African, or a race or ethnicity not listed; and mean (SD) age was 63.0 (7.5) years. Most respondents were willing to accept interception therapy and viewed reduction in lung cancer risk as the most important attribute. Respondents would accept a greater than or equal to a 12.0 percentage point increase in risk of nonfatal serious infection if lung cancer risk was reduced by at least 20.0 percentage points; and a greater than or equal to 1.2 percentage point increase in risk of fatal serious infection if lung cancer risk was reduced by at least 30.0 percentage points. Respondents would require at least a 15.4 (95% CI, 10.6-20.2) percentage point decrease in lung cancer risk to accept a 12.0 percentage point increase in risk of nonfatal serious infection; and at least a 23.1 (95% CI, 16.4-29.8) percentage point decrease in lung cancer risk to accept a 1.2 percentage point increase in risk of death from serious infection. Respondents who were unwilling to accept interception therapy in any question (129 [16.1%]) were more likely to be older and to currently smoke with no prior cessation attempt, and less likely to have been vaccinated against COVID-19 or examined for skin cancer.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this survey study of individuals at high risk of lung cancer, most respondents were willing to consider interception therapy. These results suggest the importance of benefit-risk assessments for future lung cancer interception treatments.
