Patient preferences for adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: a discrete-choice experiment.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Future oncology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1080/14796694.2025.2463276
Shawna R Calhoun, Caroline Vass, Kelley Myers, Kentaro Imai, Cooper Bussberg, Rituparna Bhattacharya, Cathy Anne Pinto, Christine Poulos
{"title":"Patient preferences for adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: a discrete-choice experiment.","authors":"Shawna R Calhoun, Caroline Vass, Kelley Myers, Kentaro Imai, Cooper Bussberg, Rituparna Bhattacharya, Cathy Anne Pinto, Christine Poulos","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2463276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To quantify patients' preferences for adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Preferences were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment requiring RCC patients to choose between 2 hypothetical treatments. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (<i>n</i> = 250) preferred treatments that increase disease-free and overall survival (OS), are taken less frequently, require no concomitant medication, have a shorter duration, and have lower side-effect risks. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Patients were generally tolerant of increases in the risks of treatment-related severe diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue and were willing to accept increases in these risks in exchange for improvements in overall or disease-free survival. Latent-class analysis identified 3 classes: class 1 (37.5%) and class 2 (26.9%) preferred not to opt out of treatment and prioritized increased OS and disease-free survival, respectively; class 3 (35.5%) preferred to opt out and prioritized mode, duration, and risks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Heterogeneity suggests patient-physician discussions are important when considering RCC treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"843-851"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11921160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2463276","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To quantify patients' preferences for adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments.

Patients and methods: Preferences were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment requiring RCC patients to choose between 2 hypothetical treatments. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.

Results: Patients (n = 250) preferred treatments that increase disease-free and overall survival (OS), are taken less frequently, require no concomitant medication, have a shorter duration, and have lower side-effect risks. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Patients were generally tolerant of increases in the risks of treatment-related severe diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue and were willing to accept increases in these risks in exchange for improvements in overall or disease-free survival. Latent-class analysis identified 3 classes: class 1 (37.5%) and class 2 (26.9%) preferred not to opt out of treatment and prioritized increased OS and disease-free survival, respectively; class 3 (35.5%) preferred to opt out and prioritized mode, duration, and risks.

Conclusions: Heterogeneity suggests patient-physician discussions are important when considering RCC treatments.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肾细胞癌患者对辅助治疗的偏好:一个离散选择实验。
目的:量化患者对辅助肾细胞癌(RCC)治疗的偏好。患者和方法:采用离散选择实验,要求RCC患者在两种假设的治疗方法中进行选择。数据分析采用随机参数logit和潜类模型。结果:患者(n = 250)倾向于增加无病生存期和总生存期(OS)的治疗方法,治疗频率较低,不需要同时用药,持续时间较短,副作用风险较低。分析还强调了他们在这些利益和风险之间进行权衡的意愿。患者通常能够忍受治疗相关的严重腹泻、头晕和疲劳风险的增加,并且愿意接受这些风险的增加,以换取总体生存或无病生存的改善。潜在分类分析确定了3个类别:1类(37.5%)和2类(26.9%)不选择退出治疗,分别优先考虑提高OS和无病生存期;第3类(35.5%)倾向于选择退出,并优先考虑模式、持续时间和风险。结论:异质性表明,在考虑肾细胞癌治疗时,医患讨论很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Future oncology
Future oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.00%
发文量
335
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Oncology (ISSN 1479-6694) provides a forum for a new era of cancer care. The journal focuses on the most important advances and highlights their relevance in the clinical setting. Furthermore, Future Oncology delivers essential information in concise, at-a-glance article formats - vital in delivering information to an increasingly time-constrained community. The journal takes a forward-looking stance toward the scientific and clinical issues, together with the economic and policy issues that confront us in this new era of cancer care. The journal includes literature awareness such as the latest developments in radiotherapy and immunotherapy, concise commentary and analysis, and full review articles all of which provide key findings, translational to the clinical setting.
期刊最新文献
The broad societal value of pembrolizumab for women's cancer in Canada. The integrated 31-gene expression profile test identifies low-risk patients with cutaneous melanoma who can forego the SLNB procedure: results from a prospective, multicenter trial. ToPCourT protocol: a phase II trial of trilaciclib, pembrolizumab, gemcitabine, and carboplatin in locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Systematic review of reflex biomarker testing and its influence on diagnostic and treatment timelines in cancer pathways. MISTOSUS: a phase II trial of Viscum album extract adjuvant therapy for relapsed resectable osteosarcoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1