Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38451419›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2024

Differences in Preferences for Drug Therapy Between Patients with Metastatic Versus Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

Lilly Sophia Brandstetter, Steffi Jírů-Hillmann, Stefan Störk, Peter Ulrich Heuschmann, Achim Wöckel, Jens-Peter Reese

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lilly Sophia BrandstetterInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, Julius-Maximilian University Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. lilly.brandstetter@uni-wuerzburg.de.ORCID 0000-0003-0158-5402
Steffi Jírů-HillmannInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, Julius-Maximilian University Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1275-5967
Stefan StörkDepartment of Clinical Research & Epidemiology, Comprehensive Heart Failure Center, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1771-7249
Peter Ulrich HeuschmannInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, Julius-Maximilian University Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2681-3515
Achim WöckelDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Würzburg, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6767-9666
Jens-Peter ReeseInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, Julius-Maximilian University Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3545-2552
Zimmer Biomet (Germany) · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

Bayerische Staatsministerium für Gesundheit und Pflege PBN-MGP-2010-0004-DigiOnko
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCompared with early stages (eBC) metastatic BC (mBC) is incurable. In mBC, aggressive treatment may increase the duration of survival but may also cause severe treatment side effects. A better understanding how patients with BC value different aspects of drug therapy might improve treatment effectiveness, satisfaction and adherence. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise studies evaluating patient preferences for drug therapy of BC and to compare preferences of patients with eBC and mBC.

methodsThe systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched on 22 June 2023. All studies published to this point were considered. Original studies reporting patient preferences on BC drug therapy determined by any type of choice experiment were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the effect measures presented as relative importance ratings, trade-offs (required benefit to make a therapy worthwhile) or monetary values of the treatment attributes was reported for each study. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies was performed using the checklist for observational studies from the STROBE Statement and the checklist from 'Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User's Guide'. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42022377031).

resultsA total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis evaluating the preferences of patients with eBC (n = 18), mBC (n = 10) or any stage BC (n = 6) on, for example, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, hormonal therapy or CKD4/6-inhibitors using different types of choice experiments. Regardless of the stage, most patients valued treatment effectiveness in terms of survival gains higher than potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Treatment cost, mode of administration, treatment regimen and monitoring aspects were considered as least important treatment attributes. In addition, preferences concerning 16 different types of ADRs were described, showing high heterogeneity within BC stages. Yet, comparable results across BC stages were observed.

conclusionsRegardless of the stage, patients with BC consistently valued survival gains as the most important attribute and were willing to accept the risk of potential ADRs. Incorporating patient preferences in shared decision making may improve the effectiveness of interventions by enhancing adherence to drug therapy in patients suffering from BC.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsPatient PreferenceAntineoplastic AgentsFemaleHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID38451419
PMCPMC11190003
OpenAlexW4392559659

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.