ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2025
A discrete choice experiment to assess treatment preferences for patients with esophageal cancer in Japan.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment options for esophageal cancer (EC) are increasingly diverse and complicated. We conducted a web-based survey on patient preferences regarding systemic drug treatment for EC in Japan.
methodsWe used a discrete choice experiment to determine patients' preferences. Eight relevant attributes and their levels were determined using step-by-step input from patients and EC medical experts. Four attributes were related to efficacy, three to safety, and one to quality of life. Ten choice sets of two hypothetical treatments with independent attribute levels were presented in questionnaires. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate predicted choice probabilities. We calculated means and 95% confidence intervals of preference weights and relative attribute importance (RAI). The primary endpoint was mean RAI; secondary endpoints were attribute trade-offs for the total sample, and mean RAI and attribute trade-offs for subgroups. Eligible patients with EC (undergoing or having undergone treatment) were recruited through commercial panels.
resultsWe analyzed 149 response sets. Respondents placed the highest relative importance on 1-year overall survival (OS; 31.4%), followed by hospitalization/dosing time (27.3%). Safety attributes, including immune-related adverse events, had relatively little influence (≤ 7.5%). Patients were willing to trade off 17.4% of 1-year OS by changing from hospitalizations and long dosing time to no hospitalization and short dosing times. The subgroup aged ≥ 65 years placed greater importance on quality of life than survival.
conclusionsWe first clarified patients' preferences for EC systemic therapy in Japan, which could provide useful information in EC treatment selection.
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.