Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30688762›Full record

ArticleMelanoma research2019

Immunotargeted therapy in melanoma: patient, provider preferences, and willingness to pay at an academic cancer center.

David D Stenehjem, Trang H Au, Surachat Ngorsuraches, Junjie Ma, Hillevi Bauer, Tanatape Wanishayakorn, Ryan S Nelson, Constance M Pfeiffer, Joshua Schwartz, Beata Korytowsky and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Melanoma research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors.

David D StenehjemDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.
Trang H AuDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.
Surachat NgorsurachesHarrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Junjie MaDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.
Hillevi BauerDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.
Tanatape WanishayakornDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.
Ryan S NelsonDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.
Constance M PfeifferBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Joshua SchwartzBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Beata KorytowskyBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Gary OderdaDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.
Diana I BrixnerDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New melanoma therapies have shifted the expectations of patients and providers. Evaluating the impact of treatment characteristics may enhance shared decision making. A survey, including a discrete choice experiment, was utilized to evaluate perceived trade-offs of different melanoma treatments and to estimate out-of-pocket (OOP) willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds (January 2016 to March 2016). Participants included patients with melanoma at Huntsman Cancer Institute and their cancer care providers. Stakeholder focus groups were conducted to identify treatment attributes. Descriptive and comparative statistics and multinomial logit model were used to evaluate responses. Response rates were 41.9% (N = 220) for patients and 37.7% (N = 20) for providers. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy attributes considered important by participants were overall survival, immunotherapy-related side effects, and skin toxicities. Patients and providers had significantly different views of quality-of-life expectations, anxiety toward melanoma, trust to make treatment decisions, sharing concerns about treatment, time to discuss treatment, understanding OOP costs, and willingness to undergo/recommend treatment (half of the patients would undergo treatment if it was effective for > 24 months). Among patients, the average monthly OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab was $ 2357 and for BRAF/MEK inhibitor was $1648. Among providers, these estimates were $ 2484 and $1350, respectively. Discordance existed between patients' and providers' perceptions about quality of life expectations, degree of anxiety, sharing of opinions, and progression-free survival. Our study suggests that patients and providers exhibit a higher OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy treatment compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, influenced predominately by overall survival expectations.

Indexed as

AgedCancer Care FacilitiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansImmunotherapyMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30688762
PMCPMC6887632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.