We describe discussions about the lung cancer treatment decision-making process across the patient journey from the perspective of patients and caregivers with diverse experiences of living with lung cancer.

Patient preference studies show individuals with lung cancer usually favor more aggressive treatments despite adverse events (AEs), in pursuit of better survival. However, patients are frequently passive in treatment decisions, suggesting there are barriers impairing patients' abilities to engage in shared decision-making. To explore this further, we asked patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-positive lung cancer and their caregivers to complete surveys and participate in focus group discussions facilitated by research specialists.

US patients with lung cancer (n = 11) and caregivers (n = 4) took part in exploratory focus groups. While initial treatment decisions were mostly led by healthcare providers, participants became more engaged in their treatment over time. As in other studies, participants prioritized survival over AEs when selecting treatments and shared fears of being switched to less efficacious treatments or reduced dose if they disclosed AEs. Participants emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, early discussions about AEs, and access to patient advocates.

Healthcare providers should distribute reliable educational materials and have early conversations with patients on individual lung cancer treatment, health-related quality of life goals, potential AEs, and distinguishing AEs from disease progression symptoms.

Ensuring equal access to affordable, high-quality, and satisfied healthcare for cancer patients is a challenge worldwide. Our study aimed to investigate preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anticancer drugs among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in China.

We identified six attributes of new anticancer drugs and adopted a Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice scenarios for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The one-on-one, face-to-face DCE was conducted in four cities in Jiangsu Province. The mixed logit regression model was used to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity.

Data from 486 patients were available for analysis. The most valuable attribute was the out-of-pocket cost if reimbursed (RI = 32.25%), followed by extension of overall survival (RI = 15.99%), and low incidence of serious side effects (RI = 14.45%). Patients had the highest willingness to pay for the comparative 9-month' extension of overall survival. Patients with advanced NSCLC were more likely to expect new anticancer drugs could improve HRQoL (p < 0.01) and require fewer out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.01). Older patients and patients with low income cared more about the out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.001).

Health insurance policymakers need to consider the affordability, comparative survival benefits, comparative safety, and comparative patient-reported outcomes of new anticancer drugs. The findings also highlight the need to ensure affordability for older patients, low-income patients, and patients with advanced cancer.

The ADAURA trial confirmed adjuvant Osimertinib's efficacy in EGFR-mutated Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet the limited mature overall survival (OS) data at approval poses a challenge. This study explores patient preferences in the absence of complete OS information, hypothesizing that disease-free survival (DFS) benefit alone may influence adjuvant Osimertinib pursuit.

At Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Jan-Dec 2021), patients assessed for adjuvant therapy received a survey probing OS and DFS preferences. Scenarios were (a) minimum OS justifying Osimertinib, (b) minimum DFS improvement justifying 3-years of adjuvant Osimertinib, (c) minimum 5-year DFS percent change, and (d) minimum OS justifying copay changes. Results were analyzed.

Of 524 NSCLC patients, 51 participated. Scenario 1 saw 56% requiring a 12-month OS benefit for Osimertinib justification. In scenario 2, 72% deemed a 12-month DFS benefit sufficient. Scenario 3 revealed 31% opting out despite a 10% OS increase. Scenario 4 showed varied willingness to pay, with 33% unwilling to any shoulder copayment even with a 10-year OS benefit.

This study explores patient preferences without complete OS data, revealing diverse thresholds. Factors include employment, education, and willingness to pay. Findings underscore shared decision-making importance. Limitations include sample size, potential biases, and regional focus; larger cohorts are needed for validation.

Through the introduction of tumor agnostic therapies, people with metastatic cancer and their treating physicians are facing new treatment choices that have differing side effect and efficacy profiles from conventional chemotherapy.

The present study undertakes a scoping review of research into the experiences of people with advanced or metastatic cancer across various solid tumor types with the goal of developing a tumor-agnostic conceptual model.

Automated queries on three internet search engines were performed to identify qualitative interview studies that focused on people with metastatic cancer. No limits were imposed for dates nor location of studies.

Of the 173 hits generated from the searches, 25 peer-reviewed papers were selected for the review with dates that ranged from 2007 to 2022. All papers originated from the USA, Europe, Australia, or Japan. Three major themes emerged that formed the basis for the tumor-agnostic conceptual model: symptoms, loss of autonomy, and adaptation/coping.

The explication of the interplay between the physical and emotional symptoms experienced by those with advanced and metastatic cancer using a multi-tumor approach provides the potential to make generalizations about the needs of this population. An opportunity exists to potentially address these needs through matching patient needs and preferences with the characteristics of novel therapeutics.

In the era of tumor agnostic therapies, the elicitation of patient preferences across the spectrum of anatomical origins has the potential to enhance shared decision making in the setting of metastatic disease.

Understanding of the patient-perceived symptom burden of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is limited. The objective of this study was to explore patients' experiences with SCLC, identify which treatment-/disease-related symptoms have the greatest impact on their well-being, and gain caregiver perspectives.

A noninterventional, cross-sectional, multimodal, mixed methods study was conducted from April-June 2021. Adult patients with SCLC and unpaid caregivers were eligible to participate. Patients' experiences, captured via 5-day video diaries and follow-up interviews, were scored 1-10 on how bothersome the patients perceived each symptom/symptomatic adverse event. Patients indicated if they believed a symptom was disease or treatment related. Caregivers participated in an online community board.

The study included nine patients (five with extensive-stage [ES] disease, four with limited-stage [LS] disease) and nine caregivers. Except for one patient/caregiver pairing, patients and caregivers were unmatched. The most common impactful symptoms in patients with ES-SCLC were shortness of breath, fatigue, coughing, chest pain, and nausea/vomiting; in LS-SCLC, these were fatigue and shortness of breath. Among patients with ES disease, SCLC had a high impact on physical (leisure/hobbies, work, sleep, ability to do household chores and errands/responsibilities outside home), social (family dynamics, extrafamilial social interaction), and emotional (mental health) aspects. Patients with LS-SCLC faced the long-term physical effects of treatment, financial implications, and emotional toll of an uncertain prognosis. SCLC had a high personal and psychologic burden among caregivers, whose duties consumed much of their time. Caregivers observed similar symptoms and impacts of SCLC as those reported by patients.

This study provides valuable insight into patient- and caregiver-perceived burden of SCLC and can inform the design of prospective studies. Clinicians should seek to understand patients' opinions and priorities before making treatment decisions.