Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40996135›Full record

ArticleActa dermato-venereologica2025

Preferences of Dermato-oncologists for Adjuvant Therapy in Stage II Melanoma: A Nationwide Discrete Choice Experiment.

Amelie Kraaz, Wiebke K Peitsch, Laura Ratusznik, Katharina Diehl, Christian Kromer, Dilan Akbarzadeh, Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt, Juliane Weilandt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amelie KraazDepartment of Dermatology and Phlebology, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany; Faculty of Medicine, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Germany.
Wiebke K PeitschDepartment of Dermatology and Phlebology, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany.
Laura RatusznikProfessorship of Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Katharina DiehlProfessorship of Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany; Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), Erlangen, Germany; Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area of Nürnberg (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany.
Christian KromerDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2197-4907
Dilan AkbarzadehDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Marthe-Lisa SchaarschmidtDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6420-7727
Juliane WeilandtDepartment of Dermatology and Phlebology, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany. juliane_w@web.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adjuvant treatment decisions in stage IIB/C melanoma require careful weighing of benefits and risks. Our aim was to investigate how dermato-oncologists in Germany prioritize efficacy, toxicity, and application mode of modern adjuvants in these stages. In a nationwide discrete choice experiment physicians evaluated hypothetical treatment scenarios that varied in recurrence risk, risk of severe adverse events, type of adverse events, and mode of administration. Two patient profiles were presented, including a 55-year-old healthy patient in stage IIB (P1) and an 83-year-old patient in stage IIC with comorbidity (P2). Physicians (n = 112) preferred adjuvant therapy to the opt-out option in 86.4% of scenarios for P1 and in 60.5% for P2. The risk of severe adverse events was considered most important for both patients and significantly more relevant for P2 (relative importance score (RIS) 53.6 vs 40.2, p < 0.001), while recurrence risk was more relevant for P1 (RIS 36.3 vs 21.8, p < 0.001). Immune-related adverse events were less acceptable than gastrointestinal symptoms or pyrexia. Infusions at longer intervals were favoured compared with oral therapies. In conclusion, dermato-oncologists prioritized safety over efficacy, particularly in the older, comorbid patient. These preferences should be reconciled with patients' preferences and treatment goals during shared decision-making.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelChoice BehaviorDermatologistsMelanomaOncologistsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Skin NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overChemotherapy, AdjuvantClinical Decision-MakingFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40996135
PMCPMC12490107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.