ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Exploring preferences of different modes of administration of hypomethylating agent treatments among patients with acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.The patient · 2026Article
- Oral vitamin B₁₂ after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: mapping the evidence.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Review
- Qualitative Interviews on the Experience of Orally vs. Intramuscularly Administered Endocrine Therapy for Advanced Breast Cancer: Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Article
- Unmet needs in patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive approaches: perspectives from a European expert panel.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Development of the treatment preference in myelodysplasia questionnaire for clinicians, carers, and patients.EJHaem · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: About half of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) are not eligible for Standard Induction Chemotherapy (SIC). Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs) intravenously (IV) or subcutaneously (SC) in a clinical setting are typically offered as an alternative. However, injectable HMAs may be burdensome for patients given the frequent hospital visits and side effects. This study explored patient treatment preferences for different modes of administration (MOA) and the relative importance of treatment-related characteristics that influence treatment decisions. Methods: Semi-structured 1:1 interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with AML in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, who are not eligible for SIC, had experience with HMAs or were scheduled to be treated with HMAs. After discussing their experience of living with AML and its treatments, patients were presented with hypothetical treatment scenarios to explore their preferences, and a ranking exercise to assess the relative importance of treatment characteristics that influence their treatment-decisions for AML. Results: Most patients reported an overall preference for oral administration over parenteral routes (71%), mostly due to convenience. Those preferring IV or SC routes (24%) reasoned with faster speed of action and onsite monitoring. When presented with a hypothetical situation of a patient having to choose between two AML treatments that were identical except for their MOA, the majority preferred the oral route (76%). Regarding treatment characteristics that influence treatment decisions, patients most frequently reported efficacy (86%) and side effects (62%) as important, followed by mode of administration (29%), daily life impacts (24%) and location of treatment (hospital versus home) (14%). However, only efficacy and side effects were rated as number one deciding factors (67% and 19%, respectively). Patients most frequently rated dosing regimen (33%) as least important. Conclusion: The insights gained from this study may help support patients with AML who are receiving HMA treatment instead of SIC. A potential oral HMA with similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to injectable HMAs could influence treatment decisions. Furthermore, an oral HMA treatment might decrease the burden of parenteral therapies and improve patients' overall quality of life. However, the extent of influence MOA has on treatment decisions requires further investigation.
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.