ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Patient preferences for treatment pathways in early-stage breast cancer: application of a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
aimThis study assessed patient preferences for four clinical trial pathways, which include multiple sequential treatments, in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early-stage breast cancer (eBC). It presents an innovative application for a discrete choice experiment (DCE), yielding single-preference weights for complex pathways. MATERIALS &
methodsPatients in Germany, Italy, and Japan with stage II/III BC completed an online DCE, which included a series of choice tasks with two hypothetical treatment profiles that varied in attributes associated with four eBC treatment pathways: overall pathway (event-free survival, fixed versus flexible, duration) and treatment-specific (side effects, regimen). Bayes modeling was used to estimate preference weights for each attribute level. Preferences for different eBC pathways were calculated by summing the respective pathway and treatment weights, adjusted for the duration of the respective treatments along the pathway. Mean pathway preference weights were compared among the four pathways and countries using analyses of variance.
resultsPathway preferences were highly sensitive to treatment toxicity and surgical response. Additionally, a flexible pathway was preferred as it can mean a shorter pathway duration.
conclusionDiscussions with patients should be personalized per individual preferences and should cover the entire treatment pathway, not just the initial treatment step.
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.