ArticleBMC cancer2025
Exploring what matters most to patients in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma treatment: a Canadian discrete choice experiment with patients, caregivers and physicians.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRelapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) significantly impacts patients' quality of life. This study investigated treatment characteristic preferences for RRMM in Canada, comparing attributes of conventional treatments to those of Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. It aimed to understand patient preferences and how caregivers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) perceive these preferences.
methodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 101 RRMM patients, 46 caregivers, and 49 HCPs. Five attributes were explored: progression-free survival (PFS), 10-year survival chance, risk of serious side effects, risk of long-term moderate side effects, and treatment administration. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical treatments in a series of 12 questions. Hypothetical treatments included CAR-T-administered treatments and alternative treatments administered by conventional means ("conventional treatments") with varying levels of performance across remaining attributes.
resultsProlonged PFS and 10-year survival chance were the most critical factors in treatment decisions across all groups. Long-term moderate side effects were more concerning than serious short-term side effects, while treatment administration was least important. Patients were willing to accept higher side effect risks for improved survival. High agreement was found between patients' preferences and caregivers' and HCPs' perceptions of these preferences.
conclusionsWhile participants showed no significant preference between the administration profiles of CAR-T therapy and conventional treatments, CAR-T therapy was favored for its clinical benefits of potentially increased survival and lower long-term side effect risks. These findings are valuable for Canadian patient-centered clinical and reimbursement decision-making, highlighting the potential role of CAR-T therapy in addressing patient needs.
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.