The results suggest that MBSR may improve cancer patients' psychosocial adjustment to their disease.

BackgroundUp to a fifth of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), which has been associated with a poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to consider the patient perspective as part of the overall treatment decision-making process for CRPC, given that an alignment between patient preference and prescribing has been shown to benefit patient outcomes. This study examines preferences of patients with CRPC in Japan for treatment features associated with treatments like RA-223, abiraterone, and docetaxel and to examine the extent to which treatment preferences may vary between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.MethodsA two-phase research approach was implemented. In Phase 1, N = 8 patients with CRPC were recruited from a single hospital to complete a qualitative interview to provide feedback on the draft survey. In Phase 2, N = 134 patients with CRPC were recruited from five hospitals to complete a paper survey. The survey included 6 treatment choice questions, each asking patients to choose between two hypothetical treatments for their CRPC. Each treatment alternative was defined by the following attributes: length of overall survival (OS), time to a symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), method of administration, reduction in the risk of bone pain, treatment-associated risk of fatigue and lost work days. A hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute level and mean relative importance.ResultsA total of N = 133 patients with CRPC completed the survey and were included in the final analysis. Patients had a mean age of 75.4 years (SD = 7.4) and had been diagnosed with PC a mean of 6.5 years prior (SD = 4.4). Over the attribute levels shown, fatigue (relative importance [RI] = 24.9 %, 95 % CI: 24.7 %, 25.1 %) was the most important attribute, followed by reduction in the risk of bone pain (RI = 23.2 %, 95 % CI: 23.0 %, 23.5 %), and OS (RI = 19.2 %, 95 % CI: 19.0 %, 19.4 %). Although symptomatic patients placed significantly more importance on delaying an SSE (p < .05), no other preference differences were observed.ConclusionsCRPC patients were more concerned about reduced quality of life from side effects of treatment rather than extension of survival, which may have implications for shared decision-making between patients and physicians.

LHRH agonist/antagonist treatment combinations remain the mCRPC treatment mainstay in Japan. However, novel anti-hormone therapies are becoming well-accepted in practice. SSEs were associated with increased healthcare resource and analgesic use, highlighting the need for efficient symptom management.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate Japanese patient preferences regarding features of intermediate or advanced (Progressed) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and oral anti-cancer therapy. Methods: Patients with HCC, recruited from clinical sites and a patient panel in Japan, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Preferences were quantified using best–worst scaling, where patients identified the best and worst among 13 treatment features. Direct elicitation was used to identify preference for TACE, HAIC, or oral therapy, including the likelihood of trying each. Additional items asked for the willingness to try an oral medication that delays progression by six months but has an 8% or 21% risk of severe hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). Results: The sample (N=119; 29 early stage; 90 Progressed) most preferred “oral medication”, “artery branches plugged”, and “prevents formation of new blood vessels”, and least preferred “risk of liver damage” and “risk of catheter-related complications”. Overall, 51%, 40%, and 8% preferred oral therapy, TACE, and HAIC, respectively ( p <0.05), and the mean likelihood of trying each were 59%, 52%, and 35%, respectively ( p <0.001). Patients with sorafenib or TACE experience most preferred what they had received; however, both groups were equally willing to try the other treatment. Patients preferring oral therapy favored “oral medication” over “artery branches plugged”, “surgery is repeated as required when the cancer grows again”, and “risk of liver damage”, compared to those preferring TACE ( p <0.05). Sixty-eight percent would probably try therapy with an 8% risk of severe HFSR, compared to 50% with a 21% risk. Conclusion: Treatment type, mode of action, and risks may drive HCC patient preferences. Such features likely should be incorporated into physician–patient interactions regarding treatment decision-making.

PURPOSE Sixteen percent (16%) of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) show no bone metastasis at diagnosis. However, 33% will become metastatic within 2 years. The goal of treatment in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC), therefore, is to delay symptomatic metastases without undue toxicity. With novel antiandrogen treatments of different strengths and limitations available, physician preferences for nmCRPC treatment in Japan should be understood. METHODS A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Physicians chose between two hypothetical treatments in nmCRPC defined by six attributes: risk of fatigue, falls or fracture, cognitive impairment, hypertension, rashes as side effects of treatment, and extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs. Relative preference weights and relative importance were estimated by hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. Physicians were also asked to make treatment decisions based on four hypothetical patient profiles to understand the most important factors driving decision making. RESULTS A total of 151 physicians completed the survey. Extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs was the most important attribute (relative importance, 32.3%; CI, 31.3% to 33.3%). Based on summed preference weights across all attributes, preferences for hypothetical treatment profiles I, II, and III were compared. A hypothetical treatment profile with better safety though shorter extension time was preferred (I: mean [standard deviation] = 1.7 [1.6 to 2.1]) over treatment profiles with lower safety but longer extension time (II: −2.7 [−2.8 to −2.6] and III: −0.2 [−0.3 to −0.1]). Treatment characteristics were more important factors for physicians' decision making than patient characteristics in prescribing treatment. CONCLUSION Physicians preferred a treatment with better safety profile, and treatment characteristics were the most important factors for decision making. This might have implications in physicians' decision making for nmCRPC treatment in the future in Japan.