Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32132149›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2020

Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits.

Daniel R Richardson, Norah L Crossnohere, Jaein Seo, Elihu Estey, Bernadette O'Donoghue, B Douglas Smith, John F P Bridges

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05061095 (Understanding What Matters Most to Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT05061095 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Understanding What Matters Most to Patients: Establishing the Validity of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey

TypeobservationalSponsorUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterRan2022 to 2023Enrolled51ConditionsHematologic NeoplasmsArmsAssessment Surveys, Qualitative Interviews
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Experiences of treatment decision-making among older newly diagnosed adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative descriptive study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Daniel R RichardsonUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. richardson@unc.edu.
Norah L CrossnohereDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Jaein SeoPatient-Centered Research, Evidera, Rockville, Maryland.
Elihu EsteyClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Bernadette O'DonoghueThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, White Plains, New York.
B Douglas SmithSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland.
John F P BridgesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Funding

UNC-CH TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000032 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HOLMES, GEORGE M · 1989 to 2024
$8.2M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS000032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recent expansion of treatment options in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has necessitated a greater understanding of patient preferences for treatment benefits, about which little is known.

methodsWe sought to quantify and assess heterogeneity of the preferences of AML patients for treatment outcomes. An AML-specific discrete choice experiment (DCE) was developed involving multiple stakeholders. Attributes included in the DCE were event-free survival (EFS), complete remission (CR), time in the hospital, short-term side effects, and long-term side effects. Continuously coded conditional, stratified, and latent-class logistic regressions were used to model preferences of 294 patients with AML.

resultsMost patients were white (89.4%) and in remission (95.0%). A 10% improvement in the chance of CR was the most meaningful offered benefit (

conclusionsIn this national sample of mostly AML survivors, patients preferred treatments that maximized chance at remission; however, significant preference heterogeneity for outcomes was identified. Age and gender may affect patients' preferences. IMPACT: Survivor preferences for outcomes can inform patient-focused drug development and shared decision-making. Further studies are necessary to investigate the use of DCEs to guide treatment for individual patients.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCancer SurvivorsDecision Making, SharedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthLatent Class AnalysisLeukemia, Myeloid, Acute

Identifiers

PMID32132149
PMCPMC7196442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.