6053 Background: Patients with metastatic breast cancer face difficult drug decisions. Our previous research (ASCO Proc 2011, abstr 6044) focused on general benefit and toxicity showed that conjoint analysis (CA) allows patients to express preferences; our current research quantifies patient preference for specific drug profiles (capecitabine and paclitaxel). Methods: Research Advocacy Network and CBWhite conducted research using CA for DOD Center of Excellence for Individualization of Therapy in Breast Cancer. An online survey was sent by four breast cancer organizations (N=641). Questions elicited views on trade-offs between benefit and type/severity/duration of toxicity. CA questions present pairs of hypothetical treatments and ask respondents their preferred alternative; a follow-up question asks whether the person would take the treatment if it were the only option available. Analysis of response patterns allows study of treatment preferences for combinations of benefit and described toxicity. Results: See table. Preferences show much greater attention to benefit than to toxicity. When CA is used to examine impact of biomarkers, focus on benefit continues. Paclitaxel profile (IV) set with moderate PN lasting 1 year post treatment: with 33% benefit LH, 6% of respondents change treatment decision if biomarker predicts 27% vs 60% toxicity likelihood; with 27% toxicity LH, 22% of respondents change treatment decision if biomarker predicts 20% vs 50% benefit likelihood. Conclusions: For patients with metastatic disease, CA shows much greater attention to benefit than toxicity, and high likelihood to take treatment with at least 30% chance of benefit for any toxicity tested here. These results suggest biomarkers (for the profiled drugs) predicting benefit are more likely to be used to affect patient treatment decisions than biomarkers for toxicity. [Table: see text]
Pregnancy-associated breast cancer in rural Rwanda: the experience of the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence