Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816141›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2023

Patient preferences for treatment modalities for localised prostate cancer.

Frederik R Teunissen, Charisma Hehakaya, Richard P Meijer, Harm H E van Melick, Helena M Verkooijen, Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Frederik R TeunissenDepartment of Radiation Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4184-5195
Charisma HehakayaDepartment of Radiation Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands.
Richard P MeijerDepartment of Oncological Urology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands.
Harm H E van MelickDepartment of Urology St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein Utrecht The Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenImaging and Oncology Division University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands.
Jochem R N van der Voort van ZypDepartment of Radiation Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

localised prostate cancer (PCa)treatment decision makingtreatment outcomestreatment preferencesutility scores

Identifiers

PMID36816141
PMCPMC9931535

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.