ArticleBMJ open2025
Patients' and doctors' preferences in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treatment in Asia-Pacific: a multi-territory discrete choice experiment using a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess preferences of patients and doctors regarding treatment attributes for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) in the Asia-Pacific region.
designA discrete choice experiment (DCE) by cross-sectional survey was conducted with patients and doctors. Key attributes relevant to eTNBC treatment decision-making were verified through a consultative process with clinical experts. The levels and description of seven attributes were refined through cognitive interviews. A D-efficient fractional-factorial design was employed to create 15 choice sets with seven key attributes.
settingAn online web-based DCE with the 15 choice sets was developed and made available to participants in Australia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan.
participantsThe final dataset comprised 115 patients who self-reported a diagnosis of eTNBC and 86 medical oncologists, breast and general surgeons with at least five years of experience managing eTNBC patients. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Patients' and doctors' preferences on seven attributes: pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free/event-free survival (DFS/EFS), chance of undergoing breast-conserving surgery after receiving anticancer treatment, febrile neutropenia, peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), diarrhoea and irreversible endocrine-related side effects requiring lifelong medication. Data were analysed using a mixed logit model to determine preference weights for attribute levels, which were then used to compute the relative importance score (RIS) for each attribute.
resultsThe median age of patients was 44.0 (IQR 38.0-56.5) years. Most patients (68%) were married, and 77% had children. Additionally, 40% were employed full-time, and 70% held a college degree. Nearly half (46%) were diagnosed before the age of 40. Among the doctors, 58% were medical oncologists and the remaining breast or general surgeons. pCR, DFS/EFS and PSN were the three most important attributes in both doctor and patient groups. pCR had the highest weighted preference among patients and doctors (RIS, 28.5 and 32.9, respectively). In general, patients assigned more weight to safety attributes compared with doctors, while doctors assigned more weight to efficacy attributes than patients did. Surgeons assigned more weight to irreversible endocrine-related side effects than medical oncologists (RIS, 14.4 vs 5.4). Differences in preferences within the regions were noted.
conclusionsWhile our study revealed a concordance between patients' and doctors' ranking of the seven assessed treatment attributes, patients generally assigned greater emphasis on safety-related attributes in comparison to doctors.
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.