Patients' Preferences for Adjuvant Osimertinib in Non–small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) after Complete Surgical Resection: What Makes It Worth It to Patients? (patt)—the Roswell Park (RP) Comprehensive Cancer Center Experience.

8520 Background: There are clinical controversies surrounding the US FDA approval of Osimertinib in December 2020 as adjuvant therapy, based on disease-free survival (DFS) improvement in patients (pts) with surgically resected stage IB-IIIA EGFRm NSCLC. We initiated a survey study to investigate our hypothesis that DFS benefit alone even without significant OS maybe deemed a valuable endpoint to pts after considering trade-offs. Methods: Participants were recruited from pts seen at the RP Thoracic Clinic from 01/21 to 12/21. Eligible pts who were being evaluated for adjuvant systemic therapy following surgical resection were given a self-administered survey based on the validated questionnaire by Blinman et al, which was modified to provide explanation of the differences between OS and DFS and the ADAURA trial results. Survey responses were collected in an online repository. Associations between survey responses and demographics were assessed using Fisher’s exact test. Changes in preference responses were assessed using McNemar’s test. Results: A total of 524 pts with NSCLC were screened, of which 101 pts were eligible to receive the survey. 51 pts (50%) responded to the survey. Median age of respondents was 69yrs (37-83), majority were female (69%, n = 35,), married (61%, n = 31), retired ( 63%, n = 32), had at least some college or higher education level(54%, n = 28), with history of smoking (84%, n = 43) and with stage IIIA (43%, n = 22) adenocarcinoma (80%, n = 41). To evaluate toxicity-related tradeoffs (Q1), a ≥12 mo. improvement in OS benefit was needed for 66% of pts to consider adjuvant Osi. However, an increase of ≥ 6 mo. of DFS was enough for 66% of pts to justify taking a daily medication (Q2). One mo. increase in DFS or OS was not enough for 60% and 78% of pts respectively to justify taking the medication. A threshold 1% increase in 5-year OS was sufficient to persuade patients to take Osi for three years, even with respect to toxicity side effects (p = 0.023). (Q3). Finally, in the hypothetical cost-based scenario (Q4), there was no indication that pts were willing to pay more for each incremental increase in OS. There appears to be some association between employment status (p =.033) or educational degree (p =.049) for tolerance of side effects if there is at least 1 additional year of DFS or OS. Conclusions: We observed that the value patients ascribe to adjuvant Osimertinib is influenced by factors besides efficacy. Knowing pts' preferences for cancer treatments can better inform regulatory bodies in formulating cost-sharing structure for cancer therapies. Our study highlights the importance of shared decision making based on individual pts' preferences.