ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Preferences for First-Line Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treatments: Results From a Multinational Study on the Perspectives of Patients and Physicians.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment preferences in Waldenström macroglobulinemia: an international discrete choice experiment in 1455 patients.Blood neoplasia · 2026Article
- First-Line Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Based Regimens for Mantle Cell Lymphoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few studies have explored physician and patient preferences for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) related to treatment efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and treatment duration. Thus, this observational, mixed-methods study investigated patients' and physicians' preferences for CLL first-line treatments. Materials and Methods: An online discrete choice experiment in five countries among 192 patients and 259 physicians in the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Australia examined the importance of outcomes and treatment attributes. Results: Increasing 5-year progression-free survival (5-year PFS) was most important to patients and physicians, with a relative importance (RI) of 30.3% among patients and 37.8% among physicians, followed by reducing the risks of common side effects (RI 21.6% among patients, 22.9% among physicians) and adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment discontinuation (RI 22.1% among patients, 20.6% among physicians). Patients strongly preferred time limited treatment regimen over treatment to progression (TTP). Specifically, patients and physicians would require a 6.4% vs 2.3% increase in 5-year PFS, a 19.4% vs 8.9% decrease in the risk of common all grades side effects, and a 7.5% vs 3.7% decrease in the risk of treatment discontinuation due to AEs, respectively, to compensate for a daily oral medication taken indefinitely vs daily oral medication taken for 24 months. Conclusion: Overall, patients and physicians favor time-limited treatment regimens over TTP and value treatments with greater PFS benefits followed by lower side effects. Patients and physicians were both willing to trade-off switching from time-limited treatment to TTP for a better 5-year PFS, decrease side effects, and risk of treatment discontinuation due to AEs.
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.