ArticleBJUI compass2023
Patient preferences for treatment modalities for localised prostate cancer.
Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key Determinants Influencing Treatment Decision-Making for and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Patient preferences for treatment modalities for localised prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the patient preferences and utility scores for the different conventional and innovative treatment modalities for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Subjects and Methods: Patients treated for localised PCa and healthy volunteers were invited to fill out a treatment-outcome scenario questionnaire. Participants ranked six different treatments for localised PCa from most to least favourable, prior to information. In a next step, treatment procedures, toxicity, risk of biochemical recurrence and follow-up regimen were comprehensibly described for each of the six treatments (i.e. treatment-outcome scenarios), after which patients re-ranked the six treatments. Additionally, participants gave a visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) score for each scenario. Differences between utility scores were tested by Friedman tests with post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: Eighty patients and twenty-nine healthy volunteers were included in the study. Before receiving treatment-outcome scenario information, participants ranked magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiotherapy most often as their first choice (35%). After treatment information was received, active surveillance was most often ranked as the first choice (41%). Utility scores were significantly different between the six treatment-outcome scenarios, and active surveillance, non- and minimal-invasive treatments received higher scores. Conclusions: Active surveillance and non-invasive treatment for localised PCa were the most preferred options by PCa patients and healthy volunteers and received among the highest utility scores. Treatment preferences change after treatment information is received.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.