Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34977691›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2022

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Martin J Connor, Mesfin G Genie, David Burns, Edward J Bass, Michael Gonzalez, Naveed Sarwar, Alison Falconer, Stephen Mangar, Tim Dudderidge, Vincent Khoo and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
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.

Martin J ConnorImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mesfin G GenieHealth Economic Research Unit (HERU), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
David BurnsHealth Economic Research Unit (HERU), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Edward J BassImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Michael GonzalezDepartment of Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Naveed SarwarDepartment of Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Alison FalconerDepartment of Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Stephen MangarDepartment of Oncology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Tim DudderidgeDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Vincent KhooDepartment of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital & Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Mathias WinklerImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Hashim U AhmedImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Verity WatsonHealth Economic Research Unit (HERU), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1Wellcome Trust 204998/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextAdvances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development.

objectiveTo perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (

conclusionsThere is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients' preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.

Indexed as

Choice behaviourCytoreductiveDiscrete choice experimentMetastasis-directed therapyMetastatic prostate cancerOligometastaticStereotactic ablative radiation therapyStereotactic radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID34977691
PMCPMC8703228

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.