ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Patient preferences for attributes of bispecific antibodies for relapse/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the US.
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. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo recently approved bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) include epcoritamab (subcutaneous, SC) administered until progression (TTP), and glofitamab (intravenous, IV) for fixed duration (FTD). Understanding patient preferences for treatment attributes is critical for patient-centered decision-making.
methodsA discrete-choice experiment among 123 DLBCL patients assessed preferences for bsAbs across six attributes: median overall survival (OS, 12- vs 18-months), 24-month complete response (CR) (55% vs 62%), grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome risk (CRS, 2% vs 5%), CRS-related hospitalization (2% vs 56%), duration (FTD vs TTP) and administration (SC vs IV). Preference weights were estimated using conditional logistic regression.
resultsCRS and CRS-related hospitalization were the strongest drivers of preferences (1.83, P < 0.001), followed by OS (1.14, P < 0.001), CR (1.13, P < 0.001), duration (0.48, P < 0.001), and administration (0.02, P = 0.877). Patients favored FTD, but preferred TTP if it reduced CRS (79.3%) or improved survival (65.8%). Patients indicated the importance of efficacy attributes (OS, 86.2%; CR, 85.4%) and quality of life (QoL, 71.5%) in decision-making.
conclusionEfficacy and safety were the most important factors, along with QoL. Patients favored FTD but were willing to tradeoff for TTP with increased efficacy or safety. These findings may guide physician/patient discussions in therapy 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.