Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37458509›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2023

Patients' attitudes and preferences toward delayed disease progression in the absence of improved survival.

Michael D Brundage, Christopher M Booth, Elizabeth A Eisenhauer, Jacqueline Galica, Janarthanan Kankesan, Safiya Karim, Rachel Koven, Valerie McDonald, Terry Ng, Jennifer O'Donnell and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. What is the role of common sense oncology in the Western Pacific?The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Michael D BrundageCancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5104-0497
Christopher M BoothCancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Elizabeth A EisenhauerCancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Jacqueline GalicaCancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Janarthanan KankesanQuinte Health Care, Cancer Clinic, Belleville, ON, Canada.
Safiya KarimTom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Rachel KovenPatient Advocate on behalf of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Valerie McDonaldPatient Advocate on behalf of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Terry NgDivision of Medical Oncology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jennifer O'DonnellCancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Julia Ten HoveCancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Andrew RobinsonCancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Queen's University · CABaker Hughes (Canada) · CACancer Care Ontario · CAKingston General Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

CIHR 165888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer patients' attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients' willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients' reasons for their preferences.

methodsA multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients' decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings.

resultsIn total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants' attitudes and values.

conclusionsProlongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeCross-Sectional StudiesDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionHumansProgression-Free Survival

Identifiers

PMID37458509
PMCPMC10699849
OpenAlexW4384626354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.