Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29899854›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2018

The outweigh of toxicity versus risk of recurrence for adjuvant interferon therapy: a survey in German melanoma patients and their treating physicians.

Katharina C Kähler, Christine Blome, Andrea Forschner, Ralf Gutzmer, Axel Hauschild, Lucie Heinzerling, Elisabeth Livingstone, Carmen Loquai, Tina Müller-Brenne, Dirk Schadendorf and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient Voices in Rheumatic Immune-related Adverse Events.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Katharina C KählerDepartment of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Christine BlomeInstitute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Andrea ForschnerDepartment of Dermatology, Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Ralf GutzmerDepartment of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Axel HauschildDepartment of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Center, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Lucie HeinzerlingDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Elisabeth LivingstoneDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Carmen LoquaiDepartment of Dermatology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Tina Müller-BrenneDepartment of Dermatology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Dirk SchadendorfDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jochen UtikalDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Tobias WagnerInstitute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Matthias AugustinInstitute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity Medical Centre Mannheim · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After more than two decades with interferon alfa-2a and 2b (IFN) as the only approved drugs in the adjuvant setting for melanoma, new treatment approaches like immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF-MEK inhibitors improve the progression free survival (PFS) and also the overall survival (OS). We compared physicians' preferences ("utilities") for health states associated with IFN therapy to their patients' preferences. Utilities describe a preference for a specific health state on a scale of 0 (as bad as death) to 1.0 (perfect health).

settingWe assessed utilities for health states associated with adjuvant IFN using the standard gamble technique in 108 physicians and 130 melanoma patients. Four IFN toxicity scenarios and three outcome scenarios were given to the participants. Both groups were asked for the 5-year disease free survival (DFS) they would need to accept the described IFN-related side effects.

resultsIn both groups, utilities for melanoma relapse were significantly lower than for IFN side effects, showing that toxicity was more acceptable than relapse. Physicians indicated higher utilities for each scenario and needed lower 5-year DFS both in case of mild-to-moderate and severe side effects. Patients were willing to tolerate mild-to-moderate and severe toxicity for a 50% and 75% chance of 5-year DFS, while physicians only required a chance of 40% and 50%, respectively.

conclusionBoth physicians and patients rated melanoma recurrence much lower than even severe IFN side effects. In direct comparison, physicians rated cancer-related scenarios more positively and accepted IFN toxicity for an even lower treatment benefit.

Indexed as

interferonmelanomapatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID29899854
PMCPMC5995230
OpenAlexW2803109148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.