Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37425173›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Balancing benefits and risks in lung cancer therapies: patient preferences for lung cancer treatment alternatives.

Serena Oliveri, Lucilla Lanzoni, Jorien Veldwijk, G Ardine de Wit, Serena Petrocchi, Rosanne Janssens, Elise Schoefs, Meredith Y Smith, Ian Smith, Kristiaan Nackaerts and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

22 authors.

Serena Oliveri *Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Lucilla Lanzoni *Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Jorien VeldwijkErasmus School of Health Policy and Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
G Ardine de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Serena PetrocchiApplied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Rosanne JanssensDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Elise SchoefsDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Meredith Y SmithDepartment of Risk Management, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston, MA, United States.
Ian SmithJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Kristiaan NackaertsDepartment of Respiratory Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Marie VandeveldeDepartment of Respiratory Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Evelyne LouisDepartment of Respiratory Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Herbert DecaluwéDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Paul De LeynDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Hanne DeclerckDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Francesco PetrellaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Monica CasiraghiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia GalliDepartment of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Marina Chiara GarassinoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Charis GirvalakiEUA Affairs Manager, European Cancer Patient Coalition, Brussels, Belgium.
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Gabriella PravettoniApplied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In the treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) the combination of Immuno- Oncotherapy (IO) and chemotherapy (CT) has been found to be superior to IO or CT alone for patients' survival. Patients and clinicians are confronted with a preference sensitive choice between a more aggressive treatment with a greater negative effect on quality of life versus alternatives that are less effective but have fewer side effects. Objectives: The aims of this study were to: (a) quantify patients' preferences for relevant attributes related to Immuno-Oncotherapy treatment alternatives, and (b) evaluate the maximum acceptable risk (MAR)/Minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) that patients would accept for treatment alternatives. Methods: An online preference survey using discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was completed by NSCLC patients from two hospitals in Italy and Belgium. The survey asked patients' preferences for five patient- relevant treatment attributes. The DCE was developed using a Bayesian D-efficient design. DCE analyses were performed using mixed logit models. Information regarding patient demographics, health literacy, locus of control, and quality of life was also collected. Results: 307 patients (158 Italian, 149 Belgian), stage I to IV, completed the survey. Patients preferred treatments with a higher 5-year survival chance as the most important attribute over all the other attributes. Preference heterogeneity for the attribute weights depended on health literacy, patients' age and locus of control. Patients were willing to accept a substantially increased risks of developing side effects in exchange for the slightest increase (1%) in the chance of surviving at least 5 years from the diagnosis of cancer. Similarly, patients were willing to accept a switch in the mode of administration or complete loss of hair to obtain an increase in survival. Conclusion: In this study, the proportion of respondents who systematically preferred survival over all other treatment attributes was particularly high. Age, objective health literacy and locus of control accounted for heterogeneity in patients' preferences. Evidence on how NSCLC patients trade between survival and other NSCLC attributes can support regulators and other stakeholders on assessing clinical trial evidence and protocols, based on patients' conditions and socio-demographic parameters.

Indexed as

discrete-choice experimentmaximum acceptable riskminimum acceptable benefitmixed logit modelnon-small cell lung cancerpatient preference

Identifiers

PMID37425173
PMCPMC10325723

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.