Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37187724›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2023

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Dominik Menges, Michela C Piatti, Aurelius Omlin, Richard Cathomas, Daniel Benamran, Stefanie Fischer, Christophe Iselin, Marc Küng, Anja Lorch, Lukas Prause and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

17 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Dominik MengesEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michela C PiattiEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Aurelius OmlinDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Richard CathomasDivision of Oncology/Hematology, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland.
Daniel BenamranDepartment of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.
Stefanie FischerDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Christophe IselinDepartment of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.
Marc KüngDepartment of Oncology, Hôpital Cantonal Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Anja LorchDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lukas PrauseDepartment of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Christian RothermundtDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Alix O'Meara SternDepartment of Oncology, Réseau Hospitalier Neuchâtelois, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Deborah ZihlerDepartment of Oncology, Hematology and Transfusion Medicine, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Max LippunerEuropa Uomo Switzerland, Ehrendingen, Switzerland.
Julia BraunEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas CernyFoundation Board, Cancer Research Switzerland, Bern, Switzerland.
Milo A PuhanEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CHKantonsspital St. Gallen · CHHôpital Beau-Séjour · CHKantonsspital Aarau · CHEU Business School · CHFribourg Development Agency · CHHospital Neuchâtel · CHKantonsspital Graubünden · CHSwissmedic · CHUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Objective: To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups. Design setting and participants: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses. Results and limitations: Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population ( Conclusions: Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC. Patient summary: We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Adverse effectsBenefitBenefit-harm assessmentDiscrete choice experimentHarmMetastasisPatient-centered carePatient preferencesProstate cancerSurvivalTreatment

Identifiers

PMID37187724
PMCPMC10175729
OpenAlexW4353031487

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.