ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Patient and Physician Preferences for Maintenance Treatment in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Insights into Treatment Selection.
Article in Advances in therapy, 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
introductionAdvanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/mNSCLC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Although maintenance therapy after first-line (1L) induction treatment can extend survival, it may also present with drawbacks like risk of certain adverse events (AEs), underscoring the need for shared decision-making between patients and their treating physicians. This study aimed to quantify the extent to which maintenance treatment attributes impact the preferences of patients and physicians after 1L induction therapy for a/mNSCLC.
methodsEligible patients (aged ≥ 18 years in the UK and US) were diagnosed with a/mNSCLC and had stable disease with or responded to 1L induction therapy. Eligible physicians were licensed oncologists with ≥ 5 years' experience in a/mNSCLC treatment who had treated ≥ 20 such patients in the past year. Surveys assessed the patients' and physicians' perspectives regarding the current treatment landscape of a/mNSCLC, and a discrete choice experiment assessed their preferences regarding treatment characteristics. Data were collected using choice cards, designed to capture treatment attribute preferences including efficacy (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]), chance (risk) of new brain metastasis (BM), and selected AEs.
resultsAmong 34 UK and 48 US patients, the three most important treatment attributes (in order) were chance of new BM, OS, and risk of severe neutropenia. Among 51 UK and 50 US treating physicians, the 3 most important treatment attributes (in order) were OS, chance of new BM, and PFS.
conclusionIn this real-world survey, OS and chance of new BM were the two most important maintenance treatment attributes for patients with a/mNSCLC and treating physicians. However, the risk of severe neutropenia carried greater relative importance, while PFS carried lesser relative importance, for patients than physicians. These results highlight the differing emphasis placed on attributes by patients and physicians when selecting maintenance treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40879895What 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.